The State Ex Rel. Bell v. Madison County Bd. of Commissioners
| Decision Date | 09 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010–1525.,2010–1525. |
| Citation | 944 N.E.2d 659,128 Ohio St.3d 357 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. BELL, Appellant,v.MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Phillip Wayne Cramer, for appellant.Onda, LaBuhn, Rankin & Boggs Co., L.P.A., and Timothy S. Rankin, Columbus, for appellee Madison County Board of Commissioners.PER CURIAM.
[Ohio St.3d 357] {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Greg A. Bell, for a writ of mandamus ordering appellee Madison County Board of Commissioners to comply with R.C. 163.01 and 163.02 to provide him with due process in the taking of his real property rights and to comply with a consent agreement.
{¶ 2} “Mandamus will not issue if there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” State ex rel. McClaran v. Ontario, 119 Ohio St.3d 105, 2008-Ohio-3867, 892 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 15; R.C. 2731.05. Bell had adequate remedies at law by way of the civil actions and appeals he has already pursued. See, e.g., Madison Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Bell, Madison C.P. No. 2003CV–02–071, affirmed in Madison Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Bell, Madison App. No. CA2005–09–036, 2007-Ohio-1373, 2007 WL 879627, appeal not accepted, Madison Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Bell, 114 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2007-Ohio-4285, 872 N.E.2d 953; Bell v. Nichols, Franklin C.P. No. 2008–CVH04–6427, affirmed in Bell v. Nichols, Franklin App. No. 09AP–438, 2009-Ohio-4851, 2009 WL 2942577.
{¶ 3} Moreover, the mere fact that Bell has already unsuccessfully invoked some of these alternate remedies does not thereby entitle him to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. See State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 366, 2008-Ohio-4607, 894 N.E.2d 314, ¶ 12; State ex rel. Dreamer v. Mason, 115 Ohio St.3d 190, 2007-Ohio-4789, 874 N.E.2d 510, ¶ 13.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Kingsley v. State Employment Relations Bd.
...remedy does not thereby entitle her to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. See generally State ex rel. Bell v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 357, 2011-Ohio-527, 944 N.E.2d 659, ¶ 3; State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 366, 20......
-
State ex rel. Bell v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
...and to comply with a consent agreement. The court of appeals dismissed that petition, and we affirmed. State ex rel. Bell v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 357, 2011-Ohio-527, 944 N.E.2d 659. {¶ 2} Thereafter, the court of appeals ruled on a motion for sanctions filed by the bo......