# State ex rel. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Orteca

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 30, 1980 · 63 Ohio St. 2d 295

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756993

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Cities Service Oil Company v. Orteca, Bldg. Commr.
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 30, 1980
- **Citations:** 63 Ohio St. 2d 295; 17 Ohio Op. 3d 189; 409 N.E.2d 1018; 1980 Ohio LEXIS 820
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 45 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756993

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining the doctrine of equitable estoppel “precludes a party from asserting certain facts where the party, by his conduct, has induced another to change his [or her] position in good faith reliance upon that conduct”
- applying estoppel to municipal corporation

## Opinion text

Paul W. Brown, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. Although mandamus is normally used to compel the exercise of discretion and not to control it, an exception is recognized to prevent an abuse of discretion. Bd. of Education of Sycamore v. State, ex rel. Wickham (1909), 80 Ohio St. 133 . The Court of Appeals found that appellants abused their discretion regarding appellee’s building permit applications and that appellants failed to comply with the first order of the Court of Appeals.
There is ample evidence in the record which demonstrates that the appellants never properly considered appellee’s building permit application. The majority opinion, in effect, overlooks appellants’ behavior during the lengthy period of time in the processing of appellee’s application. I would affirm the Court of Appeals since there was an abuse of discretion on the part of appellants and, therefore, mandamus lies to prevent the further abuse of that discretion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756993. Public record. Not legal advice.