Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Township Trustees

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1995No. 95-249PublishedCited by 170 opinions

1Per curiam

In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the Duncans had to establish a clear legal right to have the road opened and maintained, a clear legal duty on the part of the trustees to open and maintain the road, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Carter v. Wilkinson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 65, 637 N.E.2d 1.

Under R.C. 5571.02, 5571.12, and 5579.08, township trustees possess duties to keep township roads in good repair, cut brush and noxious weeds growing along township roads, and drag graveled and unimproved township roads. The court of appeals…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. IshmailOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. In re Jane Doe 1Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. Carter v. WilkinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Beebe v. ScheidtOhio Supreme Court · 1862

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by170 opinions

  1. Smith v. WunschOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Cincinnati Entertainment Associates, Ltd. v. Hamilton County Board of CommissionersOhio Court of Appeals · 2001
  4. In re Election Contest of Democratic Primary ElectionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. FoxOhio Court of Appeals · 2009

165 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