State ex rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy

423 N.E.2d 482, 67 Ohio St. 2d 342, 21 Ohio Op. 3d 215, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 588

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 22, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1740

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 423 N.E.2d 482 (State ex rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy) 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. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy, 423 N.E.2d 482, 67 Ohio St. 2d 342, 21 Ohio Op. 3d 215, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 588 (Ohio 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While relators’ complaint raises the issue of claims remaining unpaid from the prior fiscal crisis, no evidence has been provided to this court which supports a finding that any claims remain unpaid.

Essentially, relators argue since the prioritizing practice resulted in delayed payments during the prior fiscal crisis, that its implementation now, or in the future, will again result in delayed payments. Relators request issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring respondents to comply with Section 1396a (a)(37), Title 42, U. S. Code, and 42 C.F.R. 447.45(d), to insure that payments will not be delayed-in the future.

Clearly relators request prospective relief. Mandamus will not lie to remedy the anticipated nonperformance of a duty.

“***The function of mandamus is to compel the perfor[344]*344manee of a present existing duty as to which there is a default. It is riot granted to take effect prospectively, and it contemplates the performance of an act which is incumbent on the respondent when the application for a writ is made.” State, ex rel. Federal Homes Properties, Inc., v. Sinqer (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 95, 96.

We find no present injury exists. Therefore, the writ relators request would do nothing more than order respondents to comply with an existing statute. It is well-established that “a writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the observance of law* * *.” State, ex rel. Kay, v. Fuerst (1951), 156 Ohio St. 188.

Relators further request that a writ of mandamus issue to compel respondents to pay interest on all claims that were delayed as a result of the last fiscal crisis. Relators contend they are entitled to this relief under the provisions of R. C. 2743.18(A). We disagree. This statute is part of the Court of Claims Act and is applicable only to actions brought in the Court of Claims. Therefore, “ ‘[i]n the absence of a statute requiring it* * * interest cannot be adjudged against the state for delay in the payment of money.’ ” Lewis v. Benson (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 66, 67, quoting from the fourth paragraph of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Parrott, v. Board of Public Works (1881), 36 Ohio St. 409.

For the foregoing reasons, relators’ request for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is denied.²

Writ denied.

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

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

Per Curiam.

While relators’ complaint raises the issue of claims remaining unpaid from the prior fiscal crisis, no evidence has been provided to this court which supports a finding that any claims remain unpaid.

Essentially, relators argue since the prioritizing practice resulted in delayed payments during the prior fiscal crisis, that its implementation now, or in the future, will again result in delayed payments. Relators request issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring respondents to comply with Section 1396a (a)(37), Title 42, U. S. Code, and 42 C.F.R. 447.45(d), to insure that payments will not be delayed-in the future.

Clearly relators request prospective relief. Mandamus will not lie to remedy the anticipated nonperformance of a duty.

“***The function of mandamus is to compel the perfor[344]*344manee of a present existing duty as to which there is a default. It is riot granted to take effect prospectively, and it contemplates the performance of an act which is incumbent on the respondent when the application for a writ is made.” State, ex rel. Federal Homes Properties, Inc., v. Sinqer (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 95, 96.

We find no present injury exists. Therefore, the writ relators request would do nothing more than order respondents to comply with an existing statute. It is well-established that “a writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the observance of law* * *.” State, ex rel. Kay, v. Fuerst (1951), 156 Ohio St. 188.

Relators further request that a writ of mandamus issue to compel respondents to pay interest on all claims that were delayed as a result of the last fiscal crisis. Relators contend they are entitled to this relief under the provisions of R. C. 2743.18(A). We disagree. This statute is part of the Court of Claims Act and is applicable only to actions brought in the Court of Claims. Therefore, “ ‘[i]n the absence of a statute requiring it* * * interest cannot be adjudged against the state for delay in the payment of money.’ ” Lewis v. Benson (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 66, 67, quoting from the fourth paragraph of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Parrott, v. Board of Public Works (1881), 36 Ohio St. 409.

For the foregoing reasons, relators’ request for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is denied.²

Writ denied.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 N.E.2d 482, 67 Ohio St. 2d 342, 21 Ohio Op. 3d 215, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-home-care-pharmacy-inc-v-creasy-ohio-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack