Ohio Supreme Court, 1992

State ex rel. Hurt v. Cox

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided September 2, 1992 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

64 Ohio St. 3d 522; 597 N.E.2d 131; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1915

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. See State ex rel. Shane v. New Philadelphia Police Dept. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 36, 564 N.E.2d 89; State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 544 N.E.2d 680.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Sweeney, Douglas and Resnick, JJ., concur separately.

Concurring Opinion

Douglas, J.,

concurring. I concur with the judgment of the majority but for reasons other than those expressed by the majority. Having an allegedly “adequate remedy at law” is not a defense to a mandamus action filed pursuant to R.C. 149.43.

Sweeney and Resnick, JJ., concur in the foregoing concurring opinion.

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