Ohio Supreme Court, 1951

State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst

State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 7, 1951 · Hart, Matthias, Middleton, Stewart, Taft, Weygandt, Zimmerman
156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 188

State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the observance of law generally, but will be *189confined to commanding the performance of specific acts specially enjoined by law to be performed. Cullen, Vice Mayor, v. State, ex rel. City of Toledo, 105 Ohio St., 545, 138 N. E., 58; State, ex rel. Stanley, v. Cook, Supt. of Banks, 146 Ohio St., 348, 66 N. E. (2d), 207; State, ex rel. Foster, v. Miller et al., Tax Comm., 136 Ohio St., 295, 25 N. E. (2d), 686.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

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