State ex rel. McGarvey v. Zeigler, 405 N.E.2d 722 (Ohio 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
State ex rel. McGarvey v. Zeigler, 405 N.E.2d 722 (Ohio 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose (Slip Opinion) (ohio, 2022-06-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose (Slip Opinion)
Ohio · 2022 · confidence medium
See Manley, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 , 2014-Ohio-4563 , 31 N.E.3d 608 , at ¶ 26 (right to relief was unclear when the underlying factual question was in dispute); McGarvey, 62 Ohio St.2d at 321, 405 N.E.2d 722 (rights were not so clear as to justify the issuance of an extraordinary writ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Brockler v. O'Malley
Ohio Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
McGarvey v. Zeigler, 62 Ohio St.2d 320, 321 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Board of Township Trustees v. Brown
Ohio · 1985 · confidence medium
McGarvey, v. Zeigler (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 320, 321 [ 16 O.O.3d 363 ].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State, ex rel. McGarvey, and
v.
Zeigler, Exec. Dir., and
No. 79-1649.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jun 11, 1980.
405 N.E.2d 722
Messrs. Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson, Neuman & Gee, Mr. James E. Melle and Ms. Sharon V. Fladen, for appellee and cross-appellant., Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Paul L. Cox, for appellants and cross-appellees.
Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Appellee has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through a declaratory judgment action under R. C. 2721.01 et seq. However, availability of this remedy was apparently not considered by either the appellee or the appellate court.

This court stated in State, ex rel. Dollison, v. Reddy (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 59, 60, that “***[t]he availability of a declaratory judgment action does not bar the issuance of a writ of mandamus when the relator otherwise makes a proper showing, although the court may consider the availability of declaratory judgment as one element in exercising its discretion whether the writ should issue.” See State, ex rel. Bennett, v. Lime (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 62.

Further, the right to the relief sought by the relator in mandamus must be clear and the burden of establishing such right is upon the relator. State, ex rel. Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1954), 162 Ohio St. 15, 16.

This court concludes that the rights of the relatrix-appellee herein are not so clear as to justify issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus and, under the facts and circumstances sub judice, an adequate remedy at law exists which is more suited to resolving the issues presented.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.