State ex rel. Lehmann v. Cmich, 69-764
| Decision Date | 08 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69-764,69-764 |
| Citation | 260 N.E.2d 835,23 Ohio St.2d 11 |
| Parties | , 52 O.O.2d 32 The STATE, ex rel. LEHMANN v. CMITH, Mayor, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Relator filed an action in this court seeking a writ of prohibition against respondents, the mayor, the service director and the superintendent of the waterworks of the city of Canton to prevent fluoridation of the water supply pursuant to R.C. § 6111.13.
Respondents demur to the amended petition, alleging that relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and that the petition does not state facts which show a cause of action.
Paul M. Perkins, Canton, for relator.
Martin H. Hunker, City Solicitor, and Roy H. Batista, Lakewood, for respondents.
It has long been the law of this state that the conditions which must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition are: (1) The court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be authorized by law; and (3) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy. State ex rel. Caley v. Tax Comm. of Ohio. 129 Ohio St. 83, at 87, 193 N.E. 751.
Relator, in his amended petition, admits that the city of Canton supplies water to more than 20,000 persons and that R.C. § 6111.13 requires the city to fluoridate its water by January 1, 1971.
R.C. § 6111.13 requires respondents to perform a purely ministerial or administrative duty. Respondents are unable to exercise any discretion, except to vary, within narrow statutory limits, the amount of fluorides to be added to the water supply (to be determined by the amount naturally in the water), and the date (prior to January 1, 1971), for implementing fluoridation. Since R.C. § 6111.13 allows no exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial discretion by respondents, they are not 'about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power.' Furthermore, a writ of prohibition will not issue where there is an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Stefanick v. Municipal Court of Marietta, 21 Ohio St. 2d 102, at 104, 255 N.E.2d 634. The demurrer is sustained and the writ is denied.
Writ denied.
LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for MATTHIAS, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Phillips
...must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy. (State, ex rel. Lehmann, v. Cmich, 23 Ohio St.2d 11, 260 N.E.2d 835, 2. A party has standing if, in either an individual or representative capacity, he has some real interest in the ......
-
Alkire v. Cashman
...the mayor of a city who acts to fluoridate a municipal water supply pursuant to the command of that statute. See State ex rel. Lehmann v. Cmich, 23 Ohio St.2d 11, 52 Ohio O.2d 32, 260 N. E.2d 835 Plaintiffs present two additional questions which, to our knowledge, have not been raised in th......
-
State ex rel. Henry v. Britt
...appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy.' State ex rel. Lehmann, v. Cmich (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 11, 260 N.E.2d 835." See, also, Ohio Bell v. Ferguson (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 74, 76, 399 N.E.2d 1206, and cases cited Relator argues ......
-
State ex rel. Williams v. Brown, 77-1038
...is to prevent a court or officer from exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power unauthorized by law. State, ex rel. Lehmann, v. Cmich (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 11, 260 N.E.2d 835. Relator first assails the initiative petition, asserting in the third proposition of law 1 that the summary on th......