State ex rel. Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gorman, 81-1509
| Decision Date | 30 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1509,81-1509 |
| Parties | , 24 O.O.3d 362 The STATE, ex rel. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GORMAN, Judge, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Skulina, Fillo, Walters & Negrelli, Stephen D. Walters and Thomas R. Skulina, Cleveland, for appellant.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Patrick Carroll, Cleveland, for appellee.
Komito, Nurenberg, Plevin, Jacobson, Heller & McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Marshall I. Nurenberg and Harlan M. Gordon, Cleveland, for intervenor appellee.
A writ of mandamus may issue only where the relator shows (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) a clear legal duty upon respondent to perform the act requested, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Butler v. Demis (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 123, 124, 420 N.E.2d 116; State ex rel. Akron Fire Fighters v. Akron (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 448, 450, 377 N.E.2d 512.
Appellant contends that appellee is under a clear legal duty to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In Hughes v. Scaffide (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 85, 372 N.E.2d 598, we discussed the doctrine of forum non conveniens, noting that "(s)tates are free to accept or reject it as a matter of state policy." Id., at 88, 372 N.E.2d 598. Ohio has not judicially adopted the doctrine, nor is it embodied in any rule or statute. As such, appellant can not demonstrate that appellee was under a duty to apply the doctrine, and the requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus can not be fulfilled.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
...N.E. 603; Hughes v. Scaffide [1978], 53 Ohio St.2d 85, 7 O.O.3d 175, 372 N.E.2d 598; and State, ex rel. Consolidated Rail Corp., v. Gorman [1982], 70 Ohio St.2d 274, 24 O.O.3d 362, 436 N.E.2d 1357, 2. The doctrine of forum non conveniens is consistent, and does not conflict, with the intent......
-
State ex rel. Slaby v. Summit County Council, s. 11059
...as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." The well-settled rule is stated in State ex rel. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gorman (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 274, 275, 436 N.E.2d 1357 "A writ of mandamus may issue only where the relator shows (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed ......
-
State ex rel. Cosmos Broadcasting Corp. v. Brown
...complaint herein is not well-taken, and the same is hereby denied. 3 II As set forth in State, ex rel. Consolidated Rail Corp., v. Gorman (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 274, 275, 436 N.E.2d 1357 "A writ of mandamus may issue only where the relator shows (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed f......
-
State ex rel. Brown v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio
...of the Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund of Ohio, 49 Ohio St.3d 224, 225 (1990), quoting State ex rel. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gorman, 70 Ohio St.2d 274, 275 (1982). "A clear legal right exists where the [commission] abuses its discretion by entering an order which is not supp......