State ex rel. Bd. of Ed. of Dayton v. State Dept. of Ed.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1598,80-1598 |
| Parties | , 21 O.O.3d 79 The STATE, ex rel. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DAYTON et al., v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling, John P. McHugh and William L. Havemann, Dayton, for relators.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Gary E. Brown, Columbus, for Dept. of Ed. and Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Joel S. Taylor and James B. Recchie, for Controlling Bd. et al.
Kathleen McManus and Robert P. Sherman, Columbus, for Auditor of State.
David H. Beaver, Columbus, for Director of Budget & Management and Dept. of Administrative Services.
Ronald H. Snyder, Columbus, for Treasurer of State.
Two questions are presented by this case. First, whether relators are entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling SDE to submit its bus subsidy request to the Controlling Board; and, second, whether a writ should issue requiring the Controlling Board to reimburse relators for the purchase of school buses.
Entitlement to a writ of mandamus requires relators show "(1) that they have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) that respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the acts, and (3) that relators have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. * * * " State, ex rel. National City Bank, v. Bd. of Education (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 81, 84, 369 N.E.2d 1200.
Relators contend that SDE and the Controlling Board are under a clear legal duty to approve bus subsidy requests, absent discretion, upon standards adopted by SDE and approved by the board pursuant to R.C. 3317.07. We disagree.
R.C. 3317.07 provides in part:
Regulations were promulgated by SDE and approved by the board, effective September 23, 1974. The procedure to be followed by school districts when applying for bus subsidies is contained in regulation EDd-913-05, which, in pertinent part, provides:
It is apparent, however, that the power to approve generally includes as well the power to disapprove. The State Board of Education is charged with the statutory duty of administering the school foundation program. R.C. 3317.01. It is well-established that mandamus will not lie to substitute the discretion of a judicial tribunal for that of an administrative official, unless it is clearly shown that the refusal to perform the act constitutes an abuse of discretion. State, ex rel. Shafer, v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe, In re
... ... When the extradition of an accused from the state of Ohio is sought upon the ground such person has been ... Michigan v. Doran, supra; Hyatt v. People, ex rel. Corkran (1903), 188 U.S. 691, 23 S.Ct. 456, 47 L.Ed. 657; ... ...
-
State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
...decision, unless the facts demonstrate that the official abused his discretion, see State ex rel. Board of Education v. State Department of Education (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 126 [21 O.O.3d 79, 423 N.E.2d 174]. "Our review of the record leads us to conclude that [Hanson] has not alleged suffic......
-
State ex rel. Martin v. Connor
...N.E.2d 859 ; State ex rel. National City Bank, v. Bd. of Edn. (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 81, 369 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bd. of Edn. v. State Dept. of Edn. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 126, 423 N.E.2d 174 . In the present case, there has been no showing by the relator of a clear legal right to the issuance of th......
-
State ex rel. Executone of Northwest Ohio, Inc. v. Commissioners of Lucas County, 82-1704
... ... See, also, Dayton, ex rel. Scandrick v. McGee (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 356, 358, 423 N.E.2d 1095 [21 O.O.3d 225]; Boger Contracting Corp. v. Board (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d ... Bd. of Edn., v. State Dept. of Edn. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 126, 128, 426 N.E.2d 174 [21 O.O.3d 79], citing State, ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. (1953), 159 Ohio St ... ...