Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hester v. Crush

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1996No. 95-2470PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

The General Assembly has said that “[t]he writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” R.C. 2731.05. We also have emphasized that mandamus is not available when the relator has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Casey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 429, 575 N.E.2d 181; State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 40 O.O.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, paragraph three of the syllabus.

In State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus (1994), 68 Ohio…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State ex rel. Casey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ohio Department of TransportationOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State ex rel. Hill v. NiehausOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Gaskins v. ShiplevyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State ex rel. Marshall v. GlavasOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Gaskins v. ShiplevyOhio Supreme Court · 1996

9 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