Ohio Supreme Court, 1934

State Ex Rel. Brophy v. Crawford

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 31, 1934 · Weygandt, Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis, Zimmerman

190 N.E. 221; 127 Ohio St. 580; 127 Ohio St. (N.S.) 580; 1934 Ohio LEXIS 397 (North Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

City of Cleveland ex rel. Neelon v. Locher (Ohio 1971)
State ex rel. New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State Ex Rel. Cook v. Seneca County Board of Commissioners (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Soltez, Unpublished Decision (7-19-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Borsuk v. City of Cleveland (Ohio 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

This cause came on to be heard upon the petition of relator, praying that a writ of mandamus issue compelling the respondent, as prosecuting attorney, to immediately make and prosecute an application to the Court of Appeals for leave to bring and prosecute an action in quo warranto, to try the right of relators’ title to offices of directors of a private corporation, to oust the incumbents therefrom, and to induct the relators into said offices; the answer of the prosecuting attorney, admitting that- a request to bring a proceeding in quo warranto, or file an application for leave therefor, was made by relators and refused by the respondent; and the reply thereto; and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that a writ of mandamus be, and the same-hereby is, denied for the reasons:

(1) A writ of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law and to compel an official to exercise discretion, but such writ will not lie to control discretion of an officer. State, ex rel. Methodist Children’s Home Assn. of Worthington, v. Board of Edn. of Worthington Village School Dist., 105 Ohio St., 438.

*581 (2) Section 12306, General Code, is directory and not mandatory investing the prosecuting attorney with authority to institute quo warranto, and

(3) The respondent, under the pleadings, has exercised his discretion and refused to institute the requested proceeding in quo warranto.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.