State ex rel. Buian v. Kadlec

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Buian v. Kadlec

373 N.E.2d 1260, 53 Ohio St. 2d 239, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 402, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 521

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 29, 1978

DocketNo. 77-973

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 373 N.E.2d 1260 (State ex rel. Buian v. Kadlec) 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.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Buian v. Kadlec, 373 N.E.2d 1260, 53 Ohio St. 2d 239, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 402, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 521 (Ohio 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant is basically maintaining that the commission and its members have breached a contract of employment with him. Although he admits submitting a resignation, he avers that he made a revocation of this resignation prior to its acceptance by the commission and its members. However, the commission did “accept” the resignation and proceed to appoint an interim and, eventually, a permanent director.

A writ of quo warranto issues only where there is a clear legal right to the relief requested and is not the proper remedy to test the right of a person having prima facie title to an office. “The proper method of procedure in a case of this character is by mandamus rather than quo warranto." State, ex rel. Keyser, v. Babst (1920), 101 Ohio St. 275, 281.

However, the propriety of the relief here requested is obviously bottomed upon resolution of a contractual law question. It is not the obligation of this court or the Court of Appeals to resolve contractual disputes in the guise of applications for extraordinary writs, especially in view of the fact that appellant has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law under either Section 116 of the Akron City Charter² or a de[241]*241claratory judgment proceeding under E. C. 2721.03.³ The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellant is basically maintaining that the commission and its members have breached a contract of employment with him. Although he admits submitting a resignation, he avers that he made a revocation of this resignation prior to its acceptance by the commission and its members. However, the commission did “accept” the resignation and proceed to appoint an interim and, eventually, a permanent director.

A writ of quo warranto issues only where there is a clear legal right to the relief requested and is not the proper remedy to test the right of a person having prima facie title to an office. “The proper method of procedure in a case of this character is by mandamus rather than quo warranto." State, ex rel. Keyser, v. Babst (1920), 101 Ohio St. 275, 281.

However, the propriety of the relief here requested is obviously bottomed upon resolution of a contractual law question. It is not the obligation of this court or the Court of Appeals to resolve contractual disputes in the guise of applications for extraordinary writs, especially in view of the fact that appellant has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law under either Section 116 of the Akron City Charter² or a de[241]*241claratory judgment proceeding under E. C. 2721.03.³ The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 N.E.2d 1260, 53 Ohio St. 2d 239, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 402, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-buian-v-kadlec-ohio-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack