State ex rel. Coury v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Coury v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 309

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 7, 1961·No. No. 36904·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relatrix is afforded an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law under Section 4905.26, Revised Code, by filing a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission and an appeal from an adverse order of the commission.

A writ of mandamus may be denied where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See Section 2731.05, Revised Code.

Writ denied.

Wetgandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radoliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radoliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Per Curiam.

The relatrix is afforded an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law under Section 4905.26, Revised Code, by filing a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission and an appeal from an adverse order of the commission.

A writ of mandamus may be denied where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See Section 2731.05, Revised Code.

Writ denied.

Wetgandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radoliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radoliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

State ex rel. Coury v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co., 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 309 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 309 (State ex rel. Coury v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.