Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Huntington Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Duryee

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 1995No. 94-1970PublishedCited by 52 opinions

1Per curiam

As a preliminary matter, amicus Independent contends that the writ must be denied because Huntington failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04. R.C. 2731.04 provides that an action for a writ of mandamus “must be * * * in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying * * *.” This court has previously held that a writ of mandamus may be denied where the action is not brought in the name of the state on the relation of the person requesting the writ. Gannon v. Gallagher (1945), 145 Ohio St. 170, 171, 30 O.O. 351, 352, 60 N.E.2d 666; Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty. (1962),…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Peterson v. TeodosioOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. R.E. Roark Companies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Wilmington Steel Products, Inc. v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Hillis v. State, Dept. of EcologyWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin County Board of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. SchroederOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Blankenship v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court · 2004

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API