State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Hicks

Ohio Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Hicks

29 Ohio Law Rep. 35

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided December 2, 1964·No. 38545·Published

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.

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

Pincite

29 Ohio Law Rep. 35 (State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Hicks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.