State ex rel. Gaydosh v. City of Twinsburg, 757 N.E.2d 357 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 5דUnder R.C. 2731.05, a “writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.”
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm'n, 228 N.E.2d 631 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 4ד# # % ) ) Section 2731.05, Revised Code, provides: “The writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.”
State Ex Rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 65 Ohio St. 3d 545 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 2דFOOTNOTE: 1 See R.C. 2731.05: "The writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.”
State ex rel. Morgan v. City of New Lexington, 857 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 2דMandamus Is the Appropriate Remedy {¶ 40} New Lexington asserts that under R.C. 2731.05, Morgan must establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel access to the requested records.”
State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. City of Berea, 218 N.E.2d 428 (Ohio 1966). · cites it 4ד81 , reads: “By reason of Section 2731.05, Revised Code, enacted pursuant to Section 4, Article IV, Ohio Constitution, it is error for the Common Pleas Court to issue a writ of mandamus in those cases where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.”
Harris v. Ohio Dep't of Vets. Servs., 2018-Ohio-2165, 114 N.E.3d 634. · cites it 4דWhile Ohio statute does contain provisions for a remedy in mandamus, that law, R.C. 2731.05, plainly provides the adequacy of a legal remedy (such as declaratory judgment) is a bar to the writ of mandamus.”
State ex rel. V Companies v. Marshall, 692 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio 1998). “Mandamus: Adequate Remedy Marshall asserts in his third proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in granting the writ of mandamus because the V Group had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by a civil action alleging breach of contract, like the pending…”
State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-3774, 164 N.E.3d 336. “R.C. 2731.05. Penland had an adequate remedy to challenge the trial court’s failure to issue findings and conclusions: he could have raised the error in his direct appeals from the judgments denying postconviction relief.”
State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri, 639 N.E.2d 1189 (Ohio 1994). “R.C. 2731.05. In order for there to be an adequate remedy at law, the remedy must be complete, beneficial, and speedy.”
The State Ex Rel. Gadell-newton v. Husted Et Al., 2018-Ohio-1854, 103 N.E.3d 809. “" She contends that the digital ballot images constitute records of a public office and must therefore not be destroyed. {¶ 9} In her complaint, Gadell-Newton seeks a declaratory judgment that "digital ballot images are public records.”
State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten, 637 N.E.2d 306 (Ohio 1994). “R.C. 2731.05. In order for there to be an adequate remedy at law, the remedy must be complete, beneficial, and speedy.”
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.