State ex rel. Susier Co., L.L.C. v. New Philadelphia, 2017 Ohio 8139

Relators Susier Company, LLC and BiGeLo, LLC own/develop an apartment property located outside New Philadelphia city limits and seek city water and sewer hookups.
Relators allege a former mayor verbally assured the City would provide utility service; current mayor and planning commission deny knowledge and require annexation before service.
City amended its code: prior ordinance prohibited connections outside the city; current § 935.01 states "new water or sewer or other utility hook ups shall be permitted to the utility system of the City, from outside the corporate limits of the City."
Relators read "shall be permitted" as creating a mandatory duty on the City to provide hookups so long as the requester bears connection costs.
City contends the ordinance is permissive and permits, but does not compel, the City to extend service; it conditions service on annexation and City discretion.
Trial court converted defendants’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to summary judgment and granted summary judgment for respondents, holding relators failed to show a clear legal duty required for mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 935.01 creates a mandatory duty to provide utilities outside city limits	"Shall be permitted" means the City must provide hookups if requester pays costs	The language is permissive: it allows the City to provide service but does not compel it; annexation and City discretion apply	The ordinance is permissive; no clear legal duty to provide hookups, so mandamus is not available
Whether relators are entitled to mandamus relief	The City has a legal duty under the ordinance; no adequate remedy at law	Mandamus requires a clear legal right and duty; relators cannot meet that burden	Relators failed to prove a clear legal right/duty by clear and convincing evidence; mandamus denied

Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary judgment standard)
State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165 (1977) (mandamus is extraordinary and issued with caution)
State ex rel. Kriss v. Richards, 102 Ohio St. 455 (1921) (background on mandamus as extraordinary writ)
Skinner Engine Co. v. Kouri, 136 Ohio St. 343 (1940) (mandamus principles)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (elements required for mandamus)
State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 (2014) (burden of proof for mandamus)
State ex rel. Cleveland Right to Life v. State Controlling Bd., 138 Ohio St.3d 57 (2013) (requiring clear and convincing proof for mandamus)
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Wells, 18 Ohio St.3d 382 (1985) (statutes construed to avoid absurd results)
Paulus v. Paulus, 95 Ohio App.3d 612 (1994) (statutory construction to avoid absurdity)