State ex rel. Kabatek v. Stackhouse

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Kabatek v. Stackhouse

419 N.E.2d 877, 66 Ohio St. 2d 64, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 58, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 473

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 22, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1404

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 419 N.E.2d 877 (State ex rel. Kabatek v. Stackhouse) 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. Kabatek v. Stackhouse, 419 N.E.2d 877, 66 Ohio St. 2d 64, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 58, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 473 (Ohio 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only issue before this court is whether appellant utilized the proper remedy to obtain back pay, benefits, and reinstatement allegedly due him from the layoff [65]*65of October 21, 1977. Mandamus is the proper remedy under these facts. State, ex rel Hamlin, v. Collins (1981), 65 Ohio St. 2d 63; State, ex rel. Colangelo, v. McFaul (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 200; State, ex rel. Martin, v. Columbus (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 261; State, ex rel. Osborn, v. Jackson (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 41; State, ex rel. Dean, v. Huddle (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 234; Monaghan v. Richley (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 190.

The layoff of appellant on July 6, 1979, and any pending court actions resulting from that layoff, do not have a direct impact on the propriety of mandamus resulting from the layoff of October 21,1977. Thus, the pending action was improperly considered by the Court of Appeals.

Appellees’ allegation that appellant retired retroactively to November 1,1977, is a factual question to be decided by the Court of Appeals and can be taken into consideration in the granting of back pay, if any, due to appellant.

For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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.

The only issue before this court is whether appellant utilized the proper remedy to obtain back pay, benefits, and reinstatement allegedly due him from the layoff [65]*65of October 21, 1977. Mandamus is the proper remedy under these facts. State, ex rel Hamlin, v. Collins (1981), 65 Ohio St. 2d 63; State, ex rel. Colangelo, v. McFaul (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 200; State, ex rel. Martin, v. Columbus (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 261; State, ex rel. Osborn, v. Jackson (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 41; State, ex rel. Dean, v. Huddle (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 234; Monaghan v. Richley (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 190.

The layoff of appellant on July 6, 1979, and any pending court actions resulting from that layoff, do not have a direct impact on the propriety of mandamus resulting from the layoff of October 21,1977. Thus, the pending action was improperly considered by the Court of Appeals.

Appellees’ allegation that appellant retired retroactively to November 1,1977, is a factual question to be decided by the Court of Appeals and can be taken into consideration in the granting of back pay, if any, due to appellant.

For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 N.E.2d 877, 66 Ohio St. 2d 64, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 58, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-kabatek-v-stackhouse-ohio-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack