Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Smith v. Young

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 1940No. 28286PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

In the foregoing statement of facts enough has been recited from the petition to demonstrate an attempt to invoke a writ of mandamus to control the exercise of discretion by the trial court or to substitute the writ for an appeal. The writ will not issue for such purposes. Section 12285, General Code; State, ex rel. Jaster, Jr., Dir. of Highways, v. Kautz, Judge, 131 Ohio St., 103, 2 N. E. (2d), 1.

We recognize the rule that ordinarily a motion to strike from a petition should not be treated as a demurrer. This court has not adhered strictly to that rule. Finch v. Finch, 10 Ohio…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State Ex Rel. Jaster v. KautzOhio Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hofstetter v. KronkOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Labarbera v. BatschOhio Court of Appeals · 1962
  3. State Ex Rel. Luckhaupt v. McClellandOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  4. State Ex Rel. Luckhaupt v. McClellandOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  5. State ex rel. Maus v. MontgomeryOhio Supreme Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API