Ohio Supreme Court, 1981

State ex rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 22, 1981 · Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney

67 Ohio St. 2d 342; 423 N.E.2d 482; 21 Ohio Op. 3d 215; 1981 Ohio LEXIS 588

Cases that cite this one

31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State ex rel. New Prospect Baptist Church v. Ruehlman (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Zelenak v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Fenley v. Ohio Historical Society (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Fenley v. Ohio Historical Soc. (Ohio 1992)
Ohio State Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Creasy (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1984)
State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Garg v. Scott (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Vandercar, L.L.C. v. Port of Greater Cincinnati Dev. Auth. (Ohio 2024)
State ex rel. Shaker Hts. Apartments Owner, L.L.C. v. Scott (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
Vandercar, L.L.C. v. Port of Greater Cincinnati Dev. Auth. (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
Stevenson v. E. Cleveland Council President (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Evans v. Tieman (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2019)
State ex rel. E. Cleveland v. Norton (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State ex rel. GMS Mgt., Co., Inc. v. Lazzaro (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
State ex rel. McGrath v. Calabrese (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Majid v. Sutula (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
State Ex Rel. Brady v. Russo, Unpublished Decision (10-2-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Cleveland Fire Fighters v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State v. Saffold, Unpublished Decision (1-8-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Reeves v. O'malley, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State v. O'malley, Unpublished Decision (06-01-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Hall v. Calabrese, Unpublished Decision (8-16-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Department of Administrative Services v. State Employment Relations Board (Ohio 1990)
Ass'n for Defense of Washington Local School District v. Kiger (Ohio 1989)

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.

While relators’ complaint raises the issue of claims remaining unpaid from the prior fiscal crisis, no evidence has been provided to this court which supports a finding that any claims remain unpaid.

Essentially, relators argue since the prioritizing practice resulted in delayed payments during the prior fiscal crisis, that its implementation now, or in the future, will again result in delayed payments. Relators request issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring respondents to comply with Section 1396a (a)(37), Title 42, U. S. Code, and 42 C.F.R. 447.45(d), to insure that payments will not be delayed-in the future.

Clearly relators request prospective relief. Mandamus will not lie to remedy the anticipated nonperformance of a duty.

“***The function of mandamus is to compel the perfor*344manee of a present existing duty as to which there is a default. It is riot granted to take effect prospectively, and it contemplates the performance of an act which is incumbent on the respondent when the application for a writ is made.” State, ex rel. Federal Homes Properties, Inc., v. Sinqer (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 95, 96.

We find no present injury exists. Therefore, the writ relators request would do nothing more than order respondents to comply with an existing statute. It is well-established that “a writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the observance of law* * *.” State, ex rel. Kay, v. Fuerst (1951), 156 Ohio St. 188.

Relators further request that a writ of mandamus issue to compel respondents to pay interest on all claims that were delayed as a result of the last fiscal crisis. Relators contend they are entitled to this relief under the provisions of R. C. 2743.18(A). We disagree. This statute is part of the Court of Claims Act and is applicable only to actions brought in the Court of Claims. Therefore, “ ‘[i]n the absence of a statute requiring it* * * interest cannot be adjudged against the state for delay in the payment of money.’ ” Lewis v. Benson (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 66, 67, quoting from the fourth paragraph of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Parrott, v. Board of Public Works (1881), 36 Ohio St. 409.

For the foregoing reasons, relators’ request for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is denied.2

Writ denied.

Celebrezze, C. J., W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes and C. Brown, JJ., concur.

In view of our holding, we need not address relators’ request to certify this cause as a class action.

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