Ohio Supreme Court, 1982

State ex rel. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gorman

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 30, 1982 · Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Krupansky, Locher, Sweeney

70 Ohio St. 2d 274; 436 N.E.2d 1357; 24 Ohio Op. 3d 362; 1982 Ohio LEXIS 679

Cases that cite this one

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

Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Ohio 1988)
SER R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Johnson v. OSU Cancer Research Hosp. (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
State ex rel. Barnett v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
State ex rel Brown v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Miller v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Smith v. Thomas/Sysco Food Serv. (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Tradesman Internatl. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Ugicom Ents., Inc. v. Buehrer (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Almendinger v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Davis v. Bernhart (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Kinsey v. Board of Trustees (Ohio 1990)
State, Ex Rel. Boston Heights v. Petsche (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)
State ex rel. Starner v. Dehoff (Ohio 1985)
State, Ex Rel. Gangale v. Khal (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
State Ex Rel. Cosmos Broadcasting Corp. v. Brown (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
State, Ex Rel. Slaby v. Summit County Council (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
State ex rel. Keck v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Block v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators' Labor Council v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State ex rel. Medina v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
May v. PSI Affiliates, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
Calwise v. Krichbaum, Unpublished Decision (1-7-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Carter v. City of Vermilion, Unpublished Decision (5-24-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Buoscio v. Krichbaum, Unpublished Decision (3-24-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)

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.

A writ of mandamus may issue only where the relator shows (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) a clear legal duty upon respondent to perform the act requested, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Butler, v. Demis (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 123, 124; State, ex rel. Akron Fire Fighters, v. Akron (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 448, 450.

Appellant contends that appellee is under a clear legal duty to apply the doctrine of forum non convmims. In Hughes v. Scaffide (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 85, we discussed the doctrine of forum non convmiens, noting that “[s]tates are free to accept or reject it as a matter of state policy.” Id., at 88. Ohio has not judicially adopted the doctrine, nor is it embodied in any rule or statute. As such, appellant can not demonstrate that appellee was under a duty to apply the doctrine, and the requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus can not be fulfilled.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgmmt affirmed.

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

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