State ex rel. Strauss v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Strauss v. Court of Common Pleas

464 N.E.2d 1390, 11 Ohio St. 3d 214, 11 Ohio B. 530, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1140

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 1984

DocketNo. 83-810

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 464 N.E.2d 1390 (State ex rel. Strauss v. Court of Common Pleas) 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. Strauss v. Court of Common Pleas, 464 N.E.2d 1390, 11 Ohio St. 3d 214, 11 Ohio B. 530, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1140 (Ohio 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court has consistently held that mandamus will not lie where there is an adequate remedy at law. Appellants do not contest their right to appeal the judgment of the trial court. However, State, ex rel. Sowell, v. Lovinger (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 21, is cited for the proposition that where there is a total want of jurisdiction mandamus will lie regardless of the existence of an adequate remedy at law. In Sowell, however, appellants sought both a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. The existence of an adequate remedy at law will not bar an action in prohibition where there is a total want of jurisdiction. State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 326 [59 O.O.2d 387]. That is not the case in mandamus actions except where there is a total want of appellate jurisdiction and, consequently, no adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., State, ex rel. Osborn, v. Jackson (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 41 [75 O.O.2d 135].

It is well-settled that mandamus will not substitute for an appeal. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28. The judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the application for a writ of mandamus is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This court has consistently held that mandamus will not lie where there is an adequate remedy at law. Appellants do not contest their right to appeal the judgment of the trial court. However, State, ex rel. Sowell, v. Lovinger (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 21, is cited for the proposition that where there is a total want of jurisdiction mandamus will lie regardless of the existence of an adequate remedy at law. In Sowell, however, appellants sought both a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. The existence of an adequate remedy at law will not bar an action in prohibition where there is a total want of jurisdiction. State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 326 [59 O.O.2d 387]. That is not the case in mandamus actions except where there is a total want of appellate jurisdiction and, consequently, no adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., State, ex rel. Osborn, v. Jackson (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 41 [75 O.O.2d 135].

It is well-settled that mandamus will not substitute for an appeal. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28. The judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the application for a writ of mandamus is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 N.E.2d 1390, 11 Ohio St. 3d 214, 11 Ohio B. 530, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-strauss-v-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack