Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Casey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Transportation

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 14, 1991No. 90-551PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue presented is whether the court of appeals, in refusing to issue the writ, abused its discretion.

State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 40 O.O.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, is dispositive. Paragraph three of the syllabus reads as follows:

“When a petition stating a proper cause of action in mandamus is filed originally in the Supreme Court or in the Court of Appeals, and it is determined that the relator has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of appeal, neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals has authority to exercise…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State ex rel. Willis v. SheboyOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State ex rel. Butler v. DemisOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State, Ex Rel. v. Ind. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Lewis v. MoserOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Fraiberg v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. City of Whitehall ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Civil Rights CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State Ex Rel. Csank v. JaffeOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. State ex rel. Hillyer v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994

18 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