State ex rel. Hurt v. Cox
64 Ohio St. 3d 522
Ohio
1992
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. See State ex rel. Shane v. New Philadelphia Police Dept. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 36, 564 N.E.2d 89; State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 544 N.E.2d 680.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Sweeney, Douglas and Resnick, JJ., concur separately.



Concurrence Opinion

Douglas, J.,

concurring. I concur with the judgment of the majority but for reasons other than those expressed by the majority. Having an allegedly “adequate remedy at law” is not a defense to a mandamus action filed pursuant to R.C. 149.43.

Sweeney and Resnick, JJ., concur in the foregoing concurring opinion.