Home/Ohio Supreme Court/State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst

State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst

156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 188
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 7, 1951
DocketNo. 32581
StatusPublished

This text of 156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 188 (State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst) 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. Kay v. Fuerst, 156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 188 (Ohio 1951).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the observance of law generally, but will be [189]*189confined to commanding the performance of specific acts specially enjoined by law to be performed. Cullen, Vice Mayor, v. State, ex rel. City of Toledo, 105 Ohio St., 545, 138 N. E., 58; State, ex rel. Stanley, v. Cook, Supt. of Banks, 146 Ohio St., 348, 66 N. E. (2d), 207; State, ex rel. Foster, v. Miller et al., Tax Comm., 136 Ohio St., 295, 25 N. E. (2d), 686.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Stanley v. Cook
66 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1946)
State Ex Rel. Foster v. Miller
25 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-kay-v-fuerst-ohio-1951.