# State ex rel. Esch v. Lake County Board of Elections

> Ohio Supreme Court · August 28, 1991 · 61 Ohio St. 3d 595

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6763628

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Esch v. Lake County Board of Elections
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 28, 1991
- **Citations:** 61 Ohio St. 3d 595; 575 N.E.2d 835; 1991 Ohio LEXIS 2106
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 16 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/6763628

## Opinion text

Wright, J.,
dissenting. I must respectfully dissent despite my agreement with the result achieved by the majority. We have consistently held that mandamus will lie only where official action is to be ordered or compelled. Mandamus is inappropriate where one seeks to prevent such action. See State, ex rel. Assn, for the Defense of the Washington Local School Dist., v. Kiger (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 116 , 537 N.E.2d 1292 ; State, ex rel. Stamps, v. Automatic Data Processing Bd. of Montgomery Cty. (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 164 , 538 N.E.2d 105 ; State, ex rel. Kay, v. Brown (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 105 , 53 O.O.2d 284 , 264 N.E.2d 908 ; State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141 , 40 O.O.2d 141 , 228 N.E.2d 631 ; State, ex rel. Smith, v. Indus. Comm. (1942), 139 Ohio St. 303 , 22 O.O. 349 , 39 N.E.2d 838 .
The majority relies on State, ex rel. Burech, v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Elections (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 154 , 19 OBR 437, 484 N.E.2d 153 , which in my view represents an aberration from the established case law noted above. For these reasons I would reverse the decision granting mandamus in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6763628. Public record. Not legal advice.