Opinion

State Ex Rel. Bell v. Madison County Board of Commissioners

  • 128 Ohio St. 3d 357
  • 2011 Ohio 527
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 9, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
O'Connor, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, Brown
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 63.8%

The opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Bell v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 357, 2011-Ohio-

527.]

THE STATE EX REL. BELL, APPELLANT, v. MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS ET AL., APPELLEES.

[Cite as State ex rel. Bell v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Commrs.,

128 Ohio St.3d 357, 2011-Ohio-527.]

Mandamus — Petition seeking order compelling county board of commissioners

to comply with R.C. 163.01 to 163.02 in taking of real property rights and

to comply with consent agreement — Adequate remedies at law exist in

civil actions — Writ denied.

(No. 2010-1525 — Submitted February 2, 2011 — Decided February 9, 2011.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA2010-04-010.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 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, 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.

{¶ 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.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

Phillip Wayne Cramer, for appellant.

Onda, LaBuhn, Rankin & Boggs Co., L.P.A., and Timothy S. Rankin, for

appellee Madison County Board of Commissioners.

______________________

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.