State ex rel. Cinnamon Lake Utility Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 74-863
| Decision Date | 05 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-863,74-863 |
| Citation | 41 Ohio St.2d 79,70 O.O.2d 165,322 N.E.2d 645 |
| Parties | , 70 O.O.2d 165 The STATE ex rel. CINNAMON LAKE UTILITY CO. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis and Lanty L. Smith, Cleveland, for relator.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Keith F. Henley, Columbus, for respondent.
In this mandamus action, relator and the commission argue the applicability of R.C. 4909.18 to the commission's treatment of relator's submission of a rate schedule.
The day after relator filed this mandamus action, it filed an appeal in this court from the respondent's order denying relator's proposed rate schedule. This court has held many times that mandamus is not available to a relator who has an adequate remedy at law available by appeal. See, e. g., State ex rel. Foreman v. Court of Appeals (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 93, 264 N.E.2d 642.
Relator says, however, that 'time is of the essence, both to protect relator and the public interest.' Implicit in relator's contention is the argument that the delay involved in an appeal is costly to it. Thus, argues relator, it does not have a plain and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of the law.
However, in State ex rel. Kronenberber-Fodor Co. v. Parma (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 222, 297 N.E.2d 525, this court held that 'where a constitutional process of appeal has been legislatively provided, the sole fact that pursuing such process would encompass more delay and inconvenience than seeking a writ of mandamus is insufficient to prevent the process from constituting a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.'
Relator has an appeal pending in this court from the commission's order rejecting its proposed rate schedule.
Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied.
Writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Westbrook v. Ohio Civil Rights Com'n
...Absent special circumstances, mandamus is not available to a relator who has a right of appeal. State, ex rel. Cinnamon Lake Utility, v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 79, 322 N.E.2d 645 . Relator relies on State, ex rel. Cody, v. Toner (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 22, 456 N.E.2d 813, for h......
-
State ex rel. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Merillat, 89-502
...a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." See, also, State ex rel. Cinnamon Lake Utility Co., v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 79, 80, 70 O.O.2d 165, 166, 322 N.E.2d 645, 649. In the case at bar, appellant sought access to documents which had previously been t......
-
Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Parklawn Manor, Inc., 74-101
... ... Rights Commission, appellant herein, is the state agency charged with preventing unlawful ... In preparation for the required public hearing upon this complaint, the commission also ... ...
-
State ex rel. Willis v. Sheboy, 82-1059
...from constituting a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." See, also, State, ex rel. Cinnamon Lake Utility, v. Pub. Util Comm. (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 79, 80 , 322 N.E.2d 645. Although relator-appellant asserted in his complaint filed in the court of appeals that there ......