Application for the writ of mandamus must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying, and verified by affidavit. The court may require notice of it to be given to the defendant, or grant an order to show cause why it should not be allowed, or allow the writ without notice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 197
cases (64 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St. 3d 567 (2004).
Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St. 3d 567 (2004). · cites it 9דFor the following reasons, we deny the writ based on laches and relators’ failure to comply with R.C. 2731.04. {¶ 2} Relators, Herman Blankenship, Kim Blankenship, Julie Coyle, Logan Martinez, and Larry Snider, are Ohio residents who are members of a committee representing Ralph…”
Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1192, 49 N.E.3d 1296. · cites it 5דMetroparks moved to dismiss, arguing that Salemi had failed to bring the action in the name of the state and to verify his complaint with an affidavit as required by R.C. 2731.04 and further asserting that his claims failed on the merits.”
Rosen v. Celebrezze, 883 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 3ד) R.C. 2731.04. “If * * * a respondent in a mandamus action raises this R.”
State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Duryee, 653 N.E.2d 349 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 4דAs a preliminary matter, amicus Independent contends that the writ must be denied because Huntington failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04. R.C. 2731.04 provides that an action for a writ of mandamus “must be * * * in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying * *…”
Wellington v. Mahoning Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 882 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 3דX(4)(A) requirement is analogous to the R.C. 2731.04 requirement that “[a]pplication for the writ of mandamus must be by petition.”
State ex rel. Thomas v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2024-Ohio-379, 226 N.E.3d 977. · cites it 3דRelators have also filed a motion for leave to amend the caption of their complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04’s requirement that a mandamus claim be brought “in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.”
State ex rel. Rust v. Lucas Cnty. Bord of Elections, 797 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 2003). · cites it 3דR.C. 2731.04 and 3513.263 {¶ 5} The board of elections initially asserts that this case should be dismissed because Rust did not comply with R.”
Morris v. Keith, 2024-Ohio-1143. · cites it 4דThe magistrate further found relator failed to follow R.C. 2731.04 by not naming the state of Ohio on the relation in his petition, and by not seeking leave to amend his complaint to name the state of Ohio.”
State v. Henton (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1518, 50 N.E.3d 553. “10(A), (2) Henton failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04, which prescribes the form of an application for a writ of mandamus, and (3) he failed to attach to his petition the affidavit of prior actions required by R.”
State ex rel. Thomas v. McGinty (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-5452, 172 N.E.3d 824. “{¶ 41} When applied to the jurisdiction of a court of appeals, the term “petition” is also associated typically with extraordinary-writ actions invoking the court of appeals’ original jurisdiction.”
Rust v. Lucas Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St. 3d 139 (2005). · cites it 4ד{¶ 16} Finally, Rust did not comply with R.C. 2731.04, which requires that an action for a writ of mandamus “be * * * in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.”
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.