State ex rel. Pistillo v. City of Shaker Heights
| Decision Date | 21 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70-430,70-430 |
| Citation | 55 O.O.2d 134,26 Ohio St.2d 85,269 N.E.2d 42 |
| Parties | , 55 O.O.2d 134 The STATE, ex rel. PISTILLO, Appellant, v. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Burgess, Fullmer, Parker & Steck and Otto Miller, III, Cleveland, for appellant.
Walter C. Kelley, Jr., Director of Law, Cleveland, for appellees.
The Court of Appeals denied a writ of mandamus sought to order respondents to reinstate appellant on the payroll as a member of the police department of the city of Shaker Heights, Ohio. This decision of the Court of Appeals is before us on an appeal as of right.
On May 12, 1967, appellant was charged with neglect of duty, contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the Shaker Heights Police Department. After a hearing before the Mayor, in his capacity as Safety Director, appellant pleaded guilty to the charges.
On June 9, 1967, the Director of Public Safety suspended appellant for 30 days and further ruled that he would be reinstated to active duty only upon condition that certain examinations indicated him to be competent to perform police duties. Based on these examinations and reports it was the conclusion of the appointing authority that appellant was not qualified to perform his duties as a police officer, and that his services should be terminated. At all times appellant was represented by counsel. Appellant was discharged effective November 27, 1967, and was so officially notified.
No appeal was taken from the decision of the Mayor to the Shaker Heights Civil Service Commission, under Civil Service Commission Rules, from either the order of suspension of June 9, 1967, or the final discharge order of November 27, 1967. The record does not reflect any violation of due process rights of relator in connection with notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Appellant was unconditionally discharged from the Shaker Heights Police Department. There is no statutory provision placing a duty upon the part of a municipality or its officials to either reinstate or to grant a 'hearing' on the question of reinstatement of a discharged employee. This court, in State ex rel. Stanley v. Cook (1945), 146 Ohio St. 348, 66 N.E.2d 207, and State ex rel. Welsh v. State Medical Board (1945), 145 Ohio St. 74, 60 N.E.2d 620, has held that a writ of mandamus will not issue to command the performance of an act which is not specially enjoined by law to be performed.
Appellant complains about the overruling of a motion for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Stevenson v. Mayor of E. Cleveland
...811, ¶ 8.Mandamus lies to compel the performance of an act which is clearly enjoined by law upon a respondent. State ex rel. Pistillo, v. Shaker Heights (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 85; State ex rel.Freeman, v. Valentine (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 183. This principle applies whether the source of the d......
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America
...uphold discretionary review by the Court of Appeals unless there is an abuse of discretion. See, e. g., State ex rel. Pistillo v. Shaker Heights (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 85, 269 N.E.2d 42; Carrothers v. Hunter (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 99, 262 N.E.2d There was no unconscionability hearing in the C......
-
State ex rel. Ohio Motorists Ass'n v. Masten
...318: "Mandamus lies to compel the performance of an act which is clearly enjoined by law upon a respondent. State, ex rel. Pistillo, v. Shaker Heights (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 85 ; State, ex rel. Freeman, v. Valentine (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 183 . This principle applies whether the source of the......
-
State ex rel. Matheis v. Russo
...157 Ohio St. 214, 47 O.O. 139, 105 N.E.2d 53, paragraph three of the syllabus. See, also, State, ex rel. Pistillo, v. Shaker Heights (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 85, 86, 55 O.O.2d 134, 135, 269 N.E.2d 42, 43 (writ of mandamus properly denied where relator had an adequate remedy by way of an appeal......