State, ex rel. Danford v. Karl

Ohio Supreme Court

State, ex rel. Danford v. Karl

223 N.E.2d 602, 9 Ohio St. 2d 79, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 203, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 418

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1967

DocketNo. 40315

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 223 N.E.2d 602 (State, ex rel. Danford v. Karl) 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. Danford v. Karl, 223 N.E.2d 602, 9 Ohio St. 2d 79, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 203, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 418 (Ohio 1967).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Relator has a plain and adequate remedy by way of mandatory injunction which he could have sought in the Court of Common Pleas.

[80]*80A writ of mandamus must not be issued where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Central Service Station, Inc., v. Masheter, Dir. of Ewys., 7 Ohio St. 2d 1; State, ex rel. Sibarco Corp., v. City of Berea, 7 Ohio St. 2d 85.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, O. J., Zimmeeman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneidee and Beown, JJ., concur.

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