Ohio Supreme Court, 1989

State ex rel. Stafford v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 13, 1989 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

47 Ohio St. 3d 76; 547 N.E.2d 1171; 1989 Ohio LEXIS 309

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Akron Paint & Varnish, Inc. v. Gullotta (Ohio 2012)
Gray v. Willey Freightways, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
Felty v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. (Ohio 1992)
Johnson v. Ferguson-Ramos, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State Ex Rel. Sbc v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (9-27-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State Ex Rel. Standard Prod. v. Indus Comm, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Hauldren v. Ceg. Pers., Unpublished Decision (3-30-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State Ex Rel. Sitterly v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (6-27-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
McClarty v. Herzog (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)

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.

For mandamus to issue, it must be demonstrated that: (1) the relator has a clear legal right to the relief requested; (2) respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the *78acts requested; and (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28, 29, 6 OBR 50, 50-51, 451 N.E. 2d 225, 226-227. Adequate administrative remedies preclude mandamus relief. State, ex rel. Bardo, v. Lyndhurst (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 106, 112, 524 N.E. 2d 447, 453. Such a remedy, moreover, does not become inadequate merely because it is no longer available. State, ex rel. Cartmell, v. Dorrian (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 177, 179, 11 OBR 491, 493, 464 N.E. 2d 556, 559.

R.C. 4123.516 provides that:

“* * * The administrator, the claimant, or the employer may file an appeal to the commission from a decision of a regional board within twenty days after the date of receipt of the decision.” Under this statute, appellant could have appealed the April 28,1977 regional board’s order finding Joann partially dependent. The record fails to indicate that she appealed that order. This failure to pursue what we perceive to have been an adequate administrative remedy precludes mandamus relief. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., dissent. Moyer, C.J., not participating.

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