State Ex Rel. Lee v. Hall, 08-Ca-6 (10-2-2008)
State Ex Rel. Lee v. Hall, 08-Ca-6 (10-2-2008)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} To be entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the Petitioner must demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) a clear legal duty on the respondent's part to perform the act; and, (3) that there exists no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996),
{¶ 3} The Supreme Court held in Madsen, "Mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has already been performed." State ex rel. Scruggs v.Sadler,
{¶ 4} Because the relief sought has already been rendered by the trial court, Petitioner has no clear right to the relief prayed for, and the Respondent has no clear legal duty to perform an act which it has already performed. State ex rel. Lewis v. *Page 3 Boggins,
WRIT DISMISSED.
COSTS TO PETITIONER.
Edwards, J. Gwin, P.J. and Wise, J. concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.