Ohio Supreme Court, 1967

State, ex rel. Danford v. Karl

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 8, 1967 · Beown, Heebeet, Matthias, Neill, Schneidee, Taft, Zimmeeman

9 Ohio St. 2d 79; 223 N.E.2d 602; 38 Ohio Op. 2d 203; 1967 Ohio LEXIS 418

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

State, Ex Rel. Cullinan v. Boards, Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 1968)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1967)
State ex rel. Long v. Council of the Village (Ohio 2001)
State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council (Ohio 2001)
State ex rel. Riley Construction Co. v. East Liverpool City School District Board of Education (Ohio 1967)

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

Per Curiam.

Relator has a plain and adequate remedy by way of mandatory injunction which he could have sought in the Court of Common Pleas.

*80A writ of mandamus must not be issued where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Central Service Station, Inc., v. Masheter, Dir. of Ewys., 7 Ohio St. 2d 1; State, ex rel. Sibarco Corp., v. City of Berea, 7 Ohio St. 2d 85.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, O. J., Zimmeeman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneidee and Beown, JJ., concur.

Dissenting Opinion

Heebeet, J.,

dissenting. The question posed in this case is identical to that posed in State, ex rel. Durek, v. Masheter, Dir. of Hwys., 9 Ohio St. 2d 76: Does the availability of mandatory injunction or mandamus in the Court of Common Pleas preclude a Court of Appeals from hearing an original action in mandamus on the merits? The answer to that must be in the negative for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Durek.

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