When the right to require the performance of an act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not doing it, a court, in the first instance, may allow a peremptory mandamus. In all other cases an alternative writ must first be issued on the allowance of the court, or a judge thereof.
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp., 832 N.E.2d 711 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 2ד” {¶ 32} R.C. 2731.06 provides that an alternative writ is required in mandamus actions instead of a peremptory writ unless “it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not” performing the act that the writ would command.”
Ass'n for Def. of Washington Local Sch. Dist. v. Kiger, 537 N.E.2d 1292 (Ohio 1989). “” Although the relators’ motion is for an alternative writ, R.C. 2731.06 permits a court to issue a peremptory writ “[w]hen the right to require the performance of an act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not doing it.”
State ex rel. Nat'l Broad. Co. v. Court of Common Pleas, 556 N.E.2d 1120 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 2דR.C. 2731.06 provides, in relevant part: “When the right to require the performance of an act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not doing it, a court, in the first instance, may allow a peremptory mandamus.”
State ex rel. Mazzaro v. Ferguson, 550 N.E.2d 464 (Ohio 1990). “See, also, R.C. 2731.06. As Mazzaro points out, however, this case differs from Temke because the court of appeals did not make its decision before the Auditor answered.”
State ex rel. Police Officers for Equal Rights v. Lashutka, 648 N.E.2d 808 (Ohio 1995). “” This case cries out for such action. In the previously referenced letter of February 17, 1995, the Division of Police takes exactly the opposite view of what Steckman says and holds.”
State ex rel. Broadway Petroleum Corp. v. City of Elyria, 247 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio 1969). · cites it 2ד” *25 Section 2731.06, Bevised Code, reads, so far as pertinent : “When the right to require the performance of an act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not doing it, a court, in the first instance, may allow a peremptory mandamus.”
State ex rel. Taft-O'Connor '98 v. Court of Common Pleas, 700 N.E.2d 1232 (Ohio 1998). “See, also, generally, R.C. 2731.06. Relator contends, among other things, that Judge Connor had no jurisdiction to enter the restraining order in Friends of Fisher and has no jurisdiction to take any other action in that matter because the Ohio Elections Commission has exclusive…”
State ex rel. Taft v. Franklin Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 691 N.E.2d 677 (Ohio 1998). “R.C. 2731.06 provides that “[w]hen the right to require the performance of an act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not doing it, a court, in the first instance, may allow a peremptory mandamus.”
State ex rel. E.M. v. Jones, 2022-Ohio-1178, 189 N.E.3d 357. “’s motion for a continuance that was signed by both the magistrate before whom the April 1, 2022 proceedings are to take place and respondent. E.M. then filed the instant complaint on March 31, 2022.”
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Radel, 566 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 2דR.C. 2731.06 provides: “When the right to require the performance of an act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not doing it, a court, in the first instance, may allow a peremptory mandamus.”
State Ex Rel. Judges of Toledo Mun. Court v. Mayor of Toledo, 901 N.E.2d 321 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2008). “{¶ 42} Pursuant to R.C. 2731.06, this court grants a writ of mandamus and orders respondents to comply with relators’ orders regarding court security and pretrial drug testing program.”
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.