State ex rel. Spellmire v. Kauer

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Spellmire v. Kauer

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 279

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 1962

DocketNo. 37034

StatusPublished

This text of 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 279 (State ex rel. Spellmire v. Kauer) 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. Spellmire v. Kauer, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 279 (Ohio 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator’s action is based on his claimed rights under a contract of lease. Nowhere in his amended petition does he allege that the acts which he seeks to have performed by the respondent are acts which the law specially, enjoins as a duty resulting from respondent’s office. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will be granted only upon a showing of a clearly defined legal duty and a plain dereliction of that duty. This the relator has failed to do.

The demurrers to the amended petition are sustained, and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Bell, Doyle and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Taet, J., concurs in the judgment. Doyle, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Per Curiam.

Relator’s action is based on his claimed rights under a contract of lease. Nowhere in his amended petition does he allege that the acts which he seeks to have performed by the respondent are acts which the law specially, enjoins as a duty resulting from respondent’s office. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will be granted only upon a showing of a clearly defined legal duty and a plain dereliction of that duty. This the relator has failed to do.

The demurrers to the amended petition are sustained, and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Bell, Doyle and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Taet, J., concurs in the judgment. Doyle, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-spellmire-v-kauer-ohio-1962.