From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, ex Rel, v. Ind. Comm

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Nov 8, 1977
375 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. 77AP-348

Decided November 8, 1977.

Mandamus — Proper, when — To compel Industrial Commission to rule on case before it.

Where the Industrial Commission of Ohio unreasonably delays the rendering of a decision in a case before it, mandamus is the proper remedy to compel such commission to make a ruling.

IN MANDAMUS: Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Messrs. Fontana, Ward, Kaps Perry, Mr. Jerry L. Riseling, Messrs. Snyder, Hochman, Rakay Schmidt, and Mr. James B. Hochman, for relator.

Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. James Piercy, for respondent.


The respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio has filed a motion, in this mandamus action, seeking a summary judgment on the ground that the relator has not exhausted his administrative remedies. The weakness of the respondent's argument is that the case has been pending before the Industrial Commission for over a year without a determination being made. Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the exercise of discretion, i. e., make a ruling. See Cleveland, ex rel. Neelon, v. Locher (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 49.

The relator has no adequate remedy at law in the instant matter; therefore, a writ of mandamus is the appropriate method to seek the exercise of the agency's discretion.

The motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.

Motion denied.

STRAUSBAUGH, P. J., and WHITESIDE, J., concur.


Summaries of

State, ex Rel, v. Ind. Comm

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Nov 8, 1977
375 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

State, ex Rel, v. Ind. Comm

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. BARNHILL, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio

Date published: Nov 8, 1977

Citations

375 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977)
375 N.E.2d 71