State ex rel. Hurt v. Cox

Ohio Supreme Court September 2, 1992

State ex rel. Hurt v. Cox, 64 Ohio St. 3d 522 (Ohio 1992)

597 N.E.2d 131; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1915

Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

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.

Reference

Full Case Name: The State ex rel. Hurt v. Cox, Sheriff
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published