State ex rel. Colangelo v. McFaul

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Colangelo v. McFaul

404 N.E.2d 745, 62 Ohio St. 2d 200, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 239, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 719

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 21, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1394

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 404 N.E.2d 745 (State ex rel. Colangelo v. McFaul) 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. Colangelo v. McFaul, 404 N.E.2d 745, 62 Ohio St. 2d 200, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 239, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 719 (Ohio 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant alleges that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that appellee had no clear legal duty to pay past compensation since the State Personnel Board of Review made no ruling concerning it and that she had an adequate remedy at law for it by commencing a separate action.

We agree. “An action in mandamus is maintainable by a reinstated public employee to recover compensation due him for the period of time during which he was wrongfully excluded from his employment, provided the amount recoverable is established with certainty.” State, ex rel. Martin, v. Columbus (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 261, paragraph one of the syllabus. We also agree with appellant that the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling on her request for attorney’s fees. See Sorin v. Bd. of Edn. (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 177.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to the questions of back pay and attorney’s fees is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part, and cause remanded.

Celebrezze, C.J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant alleges that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that appellee had no clear legal duty to pay past compensation since the State Personnel Board of Review made no ruling concerning it and that she had an adequate remedy at law for it by commencing a separate action.

We agree. “An action in mandamus is maintainable by a reinstated public employee to recover compensation due him for the period of time during which he was wrongfully excluded from his employment, provided the amount recoverable is established with certainty.” State, ex rel. Martin, v. Columbus (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 261, paragraph one of the syllabus. We also agree with appellant that the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling on her request for attorney’s fees. See Sorin v. Bd. of Edn. (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 177.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to the questions of back pay and attorney’s fees is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part, and cause remanded.

Celebrezze, C.J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 N.E.2d 745, 62 Ohio St. 2d 200, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 239, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-colangelo-v-mcfaul-ohio-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack