Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas
This text of 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 226 (Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This action in mandamus was not instituted in conformity with the provision of Section 2731.04, Revised Code, that “application for the writ of mandamus must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.” Gannon v. Gallagher, Dir., 145 Ohio St., 170.
The relator in a mandamus proceeding has the burden of showing a clear legal right to the relief sought. This the appellant has failed to do. Section 2937.21, Revised Code, relied on by appellant, is not applicable after the trial, judgment and sentence. That section applies to “any stage of the proceeding. ’ ’
The judgment of the Court of Appeals denying the writ is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloney-v-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1962.