Opinion

State ex rel. Grosser v. Boy

  • 46 Ohio St. 2d 184
  • 75 Ohio Op. 2d 228
  • 347 N.E.2d 539
  • 1976 Ohio LEXIS 614
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
May 12, 1976
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern
Cited by
36 cases
Authority
More cited than 98.3%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

R. C. 2731.11 provides, in part, as follows:

“If judgment in a proceeding for a writ of mandamus is rendered for the plaintiff, the relator may' recover the *185 damages which he has sustained, to be ascertained by the ■court or a jury # * * .as in a civil action, and costs. * * * ”

Appellants recognize the general rule in Ohio that “in the absence of a statutory provision making attorney fees a part of costs, such fees cannot be so taxed” (State, ex rel. Michaels, v. Morse [1956], 165 Ohio St. 599 , 607), and it is evident that R. C. 2731.11 does not expressly provide for the recovery of attorney' fees. See Sorin v. Bd. of Edn. (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 177 .

Nevertheless, appellants argue that the “public benefit” conferred by their successful mandamus action, and the term “damages” in R. C. 2731.11, support the necessity of the award of attorney fees herein. However, this cause neither meets the' situation set forth in State, ex rel. White, v. Cleveland (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 37 , wherein the bestowal ■of a public benefit concomitant with a statutory authorization for attorney fees was held sufficient to demand consideration of allowance of those fees, nor is the “bad.faith, vexatious, wanton, obdurate or oppressive conduct exception” to the “American rule” that attorney fees' are not recoverable in the absence of statutory authorization demonstrated to be applicable to this cause. Sorin v. Bd. of Edn., supra.

With respect to the recovery of appellants’-costs expended in the Court of Appeals, as distinguished from the •claim for the recovery of attorney fees, no reason was stated by that court for overruling the motion -for costs. As the prevailing party, and in the absence- of persuasive reasons to the contrary, appellants should: be awarded their ■costs.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified, and appellants are awarded their costs in the -Court of Appeals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals as to denial of an award for attorney fees is affirmed.

Judgment accordingly.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

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.