Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Trimble v. State Board of Cosmetology
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 29, 1977No. 77-49PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Blown, J.
The issue raised by this cause is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the State Board of Cosmetology to grant Ms. Trimble a hearing, to return her to employment, and to compensate her for her period of unemployment.
In State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 141, paragraph one of the syllabus, the prerequisites of an action in mandamus are set forth as follows:
“Where a public officer or agency is under a clear legal duty to perform an official act, and where there is no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the. law, an action in mandamus…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Bishop v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- State v. AbramsOhio Supreme Court · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- David Yashon, M.D. v. Ian W. Gregory, M.D.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- Anderson v. LOW RENT HOUSING COM'N, ETC.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1981
- Walton v. Montgomery County Welfare DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Anderson v. Low Rent Housing CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981
- Timothy E. Feeney v. Charles Shipley State of Ohio Ohio Department of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.