Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2731
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2731.02 (2026)

Courts authorized to issue writ - contents

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 1, 1953
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

The writ of mandamus may be allowed by the supreme court, the court of appeals, or the court of common pleas and shall be issued by the clerk of the court in which the application is made. Such writ may issue on the information of the party beneficially interested.

Such writ shall contain a copy of the petition, verification, and order of allowance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: State ex rel. Food & Water Watch v. State, 100 N.E.3d 391 (Ohio 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Food & Water Watch v. State, 100 N.E.3d 391 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 4× “1: Appellant has standing pursuant to R.C. 2731.02 as a beneficially interested party commanding the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins.”
Ohio Academy of Nursing Homes v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Fam. Servs., 114 Ohio St. 3d 14 (2007). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, in response to ODJFS’s argument that appellants’ action sought nothing more than legal damages against the state, the court of appeals determined that “[bjecause appellants’ mandamus action seeks a specific order directing ODJFS to perform a legal duty, the common…”
State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Mach. Co., 498 N.E.2d 464 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 2× “This task of fact-finding is to rest with a board, not potentially a single common pleas judge before whom an action in mandamus may be brought pursuant to Section 2731.02, Revised Code. That knowledgeable and entrusted board is the Industrial Commission of Ohio, whose decisions…”
State ex rel. Nimon v. Vill. of Springdale, 215 N.E.2d 592 (Ohio 1966). · cites it 4× “Relators insist that they appear here as “electors,” not as “taxpayers,” and contend that, as “beneficially interested” persons under Section 2731.02, Revised Code, 4 compliance with the former section is excused.”
State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177, 224 N.E.3d 1086. “See R.C. 2731.02 (authorizing this court, the courts of appeals, or the courts of common pleas to issue writs of mandamus); R.”
Richard Martinez v. City of Cleveland, 700 F. App'x 521 (6th Cir. 2017). “See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2731.02 ; Shirokey, 585 N.”
State ex rel. Midview Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio Sch. Facilities Comm., 2015-Ohio-435, 28 N.E.3d 633. · cites it 4× “{¶11} R.C. 2731.02 provides that “[t]he writ of mandamus may be allowed by the supreme court, the court of appeals, or the court of common pleas and shall be issued by the clerk of the court in which the application is made.”
Harris v. Ohio Dep't of Vets. Servs., 2018-Ohio-2165, 114 N.E.3d 634. · cites it 2× “1983), citing R.C. 2731.02, and Brockman v. Ohio Dept. of Public Welfare, 7 Ohio App.”
State ex rel. Rootstown Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Portage Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 678 N.E.2d 1365 (Ohio 1997). “R.C. 2731.02, 2727.03, and 2721.02. Instead, relators contend that the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the intervening respondents’ action because their claims are within SERB’S exclusive jurisdiction.”
State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 591 N.E.2d 1186 (Ohio 1992). “R.C. 2731.02; State, ex rel. Snyder, v. State Controlling Bd.”
State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders, 685 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio 1997). “17(A) provides that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Further, a complaint for a writ of mandamus must set forth facts showing that the relator is a party beneficially interested in the requested acts before a proper claim is…”
Ohio Academy of Nursing Homes v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Fam. Servs., 844 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2005). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to R.C. 2731.02, the Court of Claims expressly lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider writs of mandamus.”
Show all 84 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2731.02(B): 1 case
Cummings v. Summa Health Sys., 2024-Ohio-5796, 259 N.E.3d 119.
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.