Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Dean v. Huddle

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1976No. 75-922PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue to be determined is whether the Court of Appeals was correct in precluding relator from a recovery of money damages and relegating him to bringing a separate action at law for those damages.

In Monaghan v. Richley (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 190, this court said in.the syllabus that:

“An action in mandamus is maintainable by a reinstated public employee to recover compensation due him for the period of time during which he was wrongfully excluded from employment, provided the amount recoverable is established with certainty.” (Emphasis added.)

The court, in Monaghan, at page 195, said that…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Monaghan v. RichleyOhio Supreme Court · 1972

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Crockett v. RobinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State ex rel. Bardo v. City of LyndhurstOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State ex rel. Wright v. WeyandtOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State ex rel. Hamlin v. CollinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State ex rel. Bednar v. City of North CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1994

11 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