State ex rel. Grosser v. Boy
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Montgomery County Welfare Department v. Bobo (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
- State ex rel. Crumbley v. City of Cleveland (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
- Lake Pointe Townhomes Homeowners' Ass'n v. Bruce (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
- McClure v. Fischer Attached Homes (Clermont County Court of Common Pleas 2008)
- State ex rel. Chapnick v. East Cleveland City School District Board of Education (Ohio 2001)
- Laituri v. Nero (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- State Ex Rel. Gerchak v. Tablack (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
- Sutherland v. Nationwide General Insurance (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
- Rayco Mfg., Inc. v. Murphy, Rogers, Sloss & Gambel (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
- Roll v. Bacon (Clermont County Court of Common Pleas 2011)
- Custom Rubber Corp. v. ATS Specialized, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 2009)
- Grine v. Sylvania Schools Bd. of Edn., L-06-1314 (3-31-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
- State ex rel. Chapnick v. E. Cleveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Ohio 2001)
- Mlinarcik v. E.E. Wehrung Parking, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
- Miller v. Gustus (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
- State ex rel. Caspar v. City of Dayton (Ohio 1990)
- White v. Soo (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)
- Goldstein v. Goldstein (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
- Mathna v. Secretary of State (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1987)
- Sekeres v. Arbaugh (Ohio 1987)
- Nottingdale Homeowners' Ass'n v. Darby (Ohio 1987)
- Ottman v. Gates (Franklin County Municipal Court 1987)
- State, Ex Rel. Brody v. Peltier (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Franklin Paper Co. (Ohio 1985)
- Akron-Canton Chapter, American Subcontractors Ass'n v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
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
R. C. 2731.11 provides, in part, as follows:
“If judgment in a proceeding for a writ of mandamus is rendered for the plaintiff, the relator may' recover the
Appellants recognize the general rule in Ohio that “in the absence of a statutory provision making attorney fees a part of costs, such fees cannot be so taxed” (State, ex rel. Michaels, v. Morse [1956], 165 Ohio St. 599, 607), and it is evident that R. C. 2731.11 does not expressly provide for the recovery of attorney' fees. See Sorin v. Bd. of Edn. (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 177.
Nevertheless, appellants argue that the “public benefit” conferred by their successful mandamus action, and the term “damages” in R. C. 2731.11, support the necessity of the award of attorney fees herein. However, this cause neither meets the' situation set forth in State, ex rel. White, v. Cleveland (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 37, wherein the bestowal ■of a public benefit concomitant with a statutory authorization for attorney fees was held sufficient to demand consideration of allowance of those fees, nor is the “bad.faith, vexatious, wanton, obdurate or oppressive conduct exception” to the “American rule” that attorney fees' are not recoverable in the absence of statutory authorization demonstrated to be applicable to this cause. Sorin v. Bd. of Edn., supra.
With respect to the recovery of appellants’-costs expended in the Court of Appeals, as distinguished from the •claim for the recovery of attorney fees, no reason was stated by that court for overruling the motion -for costs. As the prevailing party, and in the absence- of persuasive reasons to the contrary, appellants should: be awarded their ■costs.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified, and appellants are awarded their costs in the -Court of Appeals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals as to denial of an award for attorney fees is affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.