State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Hicks

Ohio Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Hicks

29 Ohio Law Rep. 35

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 2, 1964

Docket38545

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ohio Law Rep. 35 (State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Hicks, 29 Ohio Law Rep. 35 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County. Gibson, Judge.

By reason of Section 2731.05, Revised Code, enacted pursuant to Section 4, Article IV, Ohio Constitution, it is error for the Common Pleas Court to issue a [36]*36.writ of mandamus in those cases where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Judgment reversed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith and Herbert, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County. Gibson, Judge.

By reason of Section 2731.05, Revised Code, enacted pursuant to Section 4, Article IV, Ohio Constitution, it is error for the Common Pleas Court to issue a [36]*36.writ of mandamus in those cases where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Judgment reversed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith and Herbert, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ohio Law Rep. 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-sibarco-corp-v-hicks-ohioctapp-1964.