From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. v. Randall

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 16, 1953
116 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1953)

Opinion

No. 33247

Decided December 16, 1953.

Building permit — Mandamus to require issuance of — Respondents in default — Motion for summary judgment sustained — Writ allowed.

IN MANDAMUS.

Mr. Victor F. Schmidt, for relators.

No appearance for respondents.


The relators, as trustees of the Wadsworth Company of Jehovah's Witnesses, by this action in mandamus seek to compel the respondents to issue to relators a building permit, under the zoning and building ordinance of the city of Wadsworth, to erect a church building.

It is alleged in the petition that, at all times since the original application for a permit until the final refusal, the lot on which the building was proposed to be erected was in a zone in which the erection of church buildings was permitted; that all requirements of the zoning ordinance have been complied with as far as relators are concerned; that other religious organizations have been allowed to build and alter their church buildings in that district; and that the action taken by respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and an abuse of discretion and there is no basis in fact or law for their decision.

No issue has been raised by respondents, they being in default of motion, demurrer or answer. Relators have filed a motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, relators' motion is sustained and a writ of mandamus is allowed. See Section 12294, General Code (Section 2731.10, Revised Code).

Writ allowed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MIDDLETON, TAFT, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART and LAMNECK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. v. Randall

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 16, 1953
116 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1953)
Case details for

State ex Rel. v. Randall

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. WIEGEL ET AL., TRUSTEES v. RANDALL, DIR., ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 16, 1953

Citations

116 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1953)
116 N.E.2d 300

Citing Cases

State, ex Rel. Spirko v. Court of Appeals

See State, ex rel. Temke, v. Outcalt (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 189, 190 [3 O.O.3d 248]. Where no answer or other…

State, ex Rel. Woodbury, v. Spitler

Appellants would have us hold that an answer must be made in written form prior to commencement of the…