State ex rel. Hauck v. Bachrach
This text of 168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 268 (State ex rel. Hauck v. Bachrach) 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.
Opinion
The relator in a mandamus proceeding has the burden of showing a clear legal right to the relief sought. This the relator in the instant case has failed to do.
An examination of the record discloses a failure of proof that any respondent herein or any other officer or employee of the city has at any time refused to comply with any order of the park board relative to its automotive' or other equipment, has questioned the board’s jurisdiction over it, or has threatened to dispose or has disposed of or assigned any part of it to any other department of the city.
It is manifest from the prayer of the petition that relator seeks also to require city council, the legislative body of the municipality, to amend its 1958 appropriation ordinance relative to the appropriation for the park board and to continue to enact similar legislation annually. We fail to find any clear legal duty of council to do so.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hauck-v-bachrach-ohio-1958.