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
Opinions
Relator has a plain and adequate remedy by way of mandatory injunction which he could have sought in the Court of Common Pleas.
[80] A 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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).
223 N.E.2d 602 (State, ex rel. Danford v. Karl) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council
2001 Ohio 130 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)
State ex rel. Long v. Council of the Village
748 N.E.2d 58 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)
State, Ex Rel. Cullinan v. Boards, Elections
277 N.E.2d 448 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1968)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission
228 N.E.2d 631 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1967)
State ex rel. Riley Construction Co. v. East Liverpool City School District Board of Education
225 N.E.2d 246 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1967)