Case ID: ohio-st-3d_64/html/0522-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Douglas, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Hurt, Appellant, v. Cox, Sheriff, Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Hurt v. Cox (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 522.]
    (No. 91-1976
    Submitted July 8, 1992
    Decided September 2, 1992.)
    
      
      Randall M. Dana, Ohio Public Defender, Randall L. Porter and Dale A. Batch; Steven R. Layman, Assistant County Public Defender, for appellant.
    
      Jeffrey M. Welbaum, Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas G. Petkewitz, for appellee.
   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.

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.