State ex rel. Davies v. City of Elyria

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Davies v. City of Elyria

406 N.E.2d 531, 62 Ohio St. 2d 443, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 460, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 794

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1980

DocketNo. 80-198

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 406 N.E.2d 531 (State ex rel. Davies v. City of Elyria) 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. Davies v. City of Elyria, 406 N.E.2d 531, 62 Ohio St. 2d 443, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 460, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 794 (Ohio 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

“ * * *One remedy at law is the right of appeal. ***[T] he relatrix did avail herself of this remedy***. The fact that relatrix was unsuccessful in that appeal does not entitle her to substitute a writ of mandamus as an indirect means of perfecting a second appeal.” State, ex rel. Shively, v. Nicholas (1949), 151 Ohio St. 179, 181; see, also, State, ex rel. Bargar, v. Ross (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 18, 19. Similarly, appellant, pursuant to R. C. 124.34, perfected appeals to the civil service commission and to the Court of Common Pleas. However, appellant failed to use this same statutory right of appeal in the Court of Appeals. Rather, appellant inappropriately brought an action in mandamus when an adequate legal remedy existed under R. C. 124.34.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals properly denied the requested writ, and its judgment is hereby affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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.

“ * * *One remedy at law is the right of appeal. ***[T] he relatrix did avail herself of this remedy***. The fact that relatrix was unsuccessful in that appeal does not entitle her to substitute a writ of mandamus as an indirect means of perfecting a second appeal.” State, ex rel. Shively, v. Nicholas (1949), 151 Ohio St. 179, 181; see, also, State, ex rel. Bargar, v. Ross (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 18, 19. Similarly, appellant, pursuant to R. C. 124.34, perfected appeals to the civil service commission and to the Court of Common Pleas. However, appellant failed to use this same statutory right of appeal in the Court of Appeals. Rather, appellant inappropriately brought an action in mandamus when an adequate legal remedy existed under R. C. 124.34.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals properly denied the requested writ, and its judgment is hereby affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 N.E.2d 531, 62 Ohio St. 2d 443, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 460, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-davies-v-city-of-elyria-ohio-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack