The writ of mandamus may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 515 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio 1987).
State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 515 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 2דAlthough a writ of mandamus may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or to proceed to the discharge of its function, R.C. 2731.03, it may not control judicial discretion, even if such discretion is grossly abused.”
State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 795 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 2דNoling III recognizes the limited scope of review {¶ 96} Remarkably, the majority’s broad reading of R.”
State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common Pleas, 603 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 3דI respectfully dissent because the majority has granted relator’s request for a writ of mandamus in contravention of R.C. 2731.03 and 2731.05. R.C. 2731.03 states: “The writ of mandamus may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any…”
State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 664 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio 1996). “*569 Mandamus does not lie to control judicial discretion, R.C. 2731.03, or to correct judgments manifesting an abuse of discretion.”
State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese, 631 N.E.2d 119 (Ohio 1994). “Similarly, prohibition will not lie since appellee’s decision to disqualify Mancino and Higgins and proceed with the criminal trial with appellant being represented by appointed counsel was within his jurisdictional authority.”
State ex rel. Levin v. City of Sheffield Lake, 637 N.E.2d 319 (Ohio 1994). “The court of appeals recognized the Levin Group’s purpose when it denied mandamus on the ground that the writ could not be used to control or review Judge Zaleski’s rulings in Prince, particularly his decision to schedule a jury trial for October 30, 1991.”
State Ex Rel. Vill. of Richfield v. Laria, 2014 Ohio 243 (Ohio 2014). “2d 58 , ¶ 11, and R.C. 2731.03. “ ‘Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal * * *.”
State ex rel. Dreamer v. Mason, 874 N.E.2d 510 (Ohio 2007). “2d 1220 , ¶ 3; R.C. 2731.03. In essence, appellees are challenging the trial judge’s pretrial discovery decision to quash appellees’ subpoena for the requested records.”
State ex rel. Obojski v. Perciak, 866 N.E.2d 1070 (Ohio 2007). “2d 1220 , ¶ 3 (“mandamus will not lie to control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is abused”); R.C. 2731.03. Mandamus to Vacate Agreed Judgment Entry {¶ 21} Appellants claim that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus to vacate the agreed judgment entry because the…”
State ex rel. Ohio Council 8 v. Spellacy, 478 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 3דR.C. 2731.03 states that: “The writ of mandamus may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.”
State ex rel. Heck v. Kessler, 647 N.E.2d 792 (Ohio 1995). “2d 186, 189 ; R.C. 2731.03. However, “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, such as an intervening decision by the Supreme Court, an inferior court has no discretion to disregard the mandate of a superior court in a prior appeal in the same case.”
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.