Ohio Supreme Court, 1976

State ex rel. Dean v. Huddle

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided March 10, 1976 · Brown, Celebrezzé, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern

45 Ohio St. 2d 234; 344 N.E.2d 138; 74 Ohio Op. 2d 378; 1976 Ohio LEXIS 565

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Bardo v. City of Lyndhurst (Ohio 1988)
Fenton v. Enaharo (Ohio 1987)
State ex rel. Bednar v. City of North Canton (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Bednar v. N. Canton (Ohio 1994)
State Ex Rel. Butterbaugh v. Ross County Board of Commissioners (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the I.A.F.F. v. Cleveland (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State Ex Rel. Dwyer v. City of Middletown (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
State ex rel. Hamlin v. Collins (Ohio 1984)
White v. Summit Cty. Dept. of Human Servs., 23740 (1-23-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State ex rel. Hamlin v. Collins (Ohio 1981)
State ex rel. Kabatek v. Stackhouse (Ohio 1981)
State ex rel. Crockett v. Robinson (Ohio 1981)
State ex rel. Montrie Nursing Home, Inc. v. Aggrey (Ohio 1980)
State Ex Rel. Johnston v. Cincinnati Board of Education (Ohio Ct. App. 1979)
State Ex Rel. Bechstein v. Board of Education of Bowling Green City School District (Ohio Ct. App. 1978)
State ex rel. Wright v. Weyandt (Ohio 1977)

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.

The issue to be determined is whether the Court of Appeals was correct in precluding relator from a recovery of money damages and relegating him to bringing a separate action at law for those damages.

In Monaghan v. Richley (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 190, this court said in.the syllabus that:

“An action in mandamus is maintainable by a reinstated public employee to recover compensation due him for the period of time during which he was wrongfully excluded from employment, provided the amount recoverable is established with certainty.” (Emphasis added.)

The court, in Monaghan, at page 195, said that “ [t]he amount recoverable is, of. course, the amount of compensation the employee would have received had he not been wrongfully excluded from his employment, which amount is subject to reduction * * by the amount he earned or in the exercise of due diligence could have earned in appropriate employment during the period of exclusion.’ State, ex rel. Wilcox, v. Woldman, supra (157 Ohio St. 264), paragraph one of syllabus.”

*236The record, in ■ the instant case, indicates that the amount of compensation relator was .entitled to for the period of time he was excluded from work ($18,796.76) and. the amount of money he earned elsewhere during , such period ($5,959.89) were established with certainty. ; In addition, this court concludes from the record' that, relator exercised due diligence, to obtain appropriate employment during the period of exclusion from his position. See Monaghan, supra, at 196.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is revers'ed and the writ prayed for is allowed, and respondent is ordered to pay the compensation due relator for the period of his wrongful exclusion from employment, in the amount of $12,836.87, with interest at the rate of six percent.

Judgment reversed cmd writ alloioed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezzé, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

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