Ohio Supreme Court, 1978

State ex rel. Bargar v. Ross

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 18, 1978 · Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney

53 Ohio St. 2d 18; 371 N.E.2d 841; 7 Ohio Op. 3d 62; 1978 Ohio LEXIS 481

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Hunt v. Westlake City School District Board of Education (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1985)
State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (Ohio 1983)
State Ex Rel Harman v. Durkin, Unpublished Decision (5-18-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State ex rel. Davies v. City of Elyria (Ohio 1980)

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.

E. C. 2731.05 provides that “[t]he writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” In this cause, appellant has exhausted his “plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law” and attempts to substitute an action in mandamus for an otherwise barred second appeal.

This court stated in State, ex rel. Shively, v. Nicholas (1949), 151 Ohio St. 179, at page 181 that: “One remedy at law is the right of appeal. * * * [T]he relatrix did avail herself of this remedy * * *. The fact that the relatrix was unsuccessful in that appeal does not entitle her to substitute a writ of mandamus as an indirect means of perfecting a second appeal.”

Mandamus is not a method to obtain successive appellate reviews of the same issue.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

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