Case ID: ohio-st-3d_93/html/1230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lundberg Stratton, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Long v. Council of the Village of Cardington et al.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 1230.]
    (No. 00-857
    Submitted October 30, 2001
    Decided December 12, 2001.)
    
      Alden, Taylor & Durkin, L.L.C., Randolph W. Alden, Kevin Durkin and James R. Taylor, for relator.
    
      Manos, Martin, Pergram & Dietz, L.P.A., Dennis L. Pergram and James M. Dietz, for respondents.
   On relator’s application for attorney fees and costs and relator’s submission of evidence in support of application, relator is awarded $17,623.75 in attorney fees and a refund of $140 in costs (security deposit and docket fees). Relator’s request for additional attorney fees is denied.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I did not agree with the majority’s decision to grant a writ of mandamus because I believed that the relator had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law under R.C. 121.22(I)(1). See State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 54, 61-63, 748 N.E.2d 58, 65-67 (Lundberg Stratton, J., dissenting). Consequently, I do not agree that she is entitled to recover her costs and attorney fees. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.