midpage

Maloney v. Court of Common PleasMaloney v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court
Mar 21, 1962
No. 37028
Versions:
Per Curiam.

This action in mandamus was not instituted in conformity with the provision of Section 2731.04, Revised Code, that “application for the writ of mandamus must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.” Gannon v. Gallagher, Dir., 145 Ohio St., 170.

The relator in a mandamus proceeding has the burden of showing a clear legal right to the relief sought. This the appellant has failed to do. Section 2937.21, Revised Code, relied on by appellant, is not applicable after the trial, judgment and sentence. That section applies to “any stage of the proceeding. ’ ’

The judgment of the Court of Appeals denying the writ is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Mar 21, 1962
Citations: 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 226; 173 Ohio St. 226; No. 37028
Docket Number: No. 37028
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
Log In
    Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 226