State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst
156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 188
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst, 156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 188 (Ohio 1951).
156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 188 (State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)