# State ex rel. Hurt v. Cox

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 2, 1992 · 64 Ohio St. 3d 522

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6765403

## Case

- **Full name:** The State ex rel. Hurt v. Cox, Sheriff
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 2, 1992
- **Citations:** 64 Ohio St. 3d 522; 597 N.E.2d 131; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1915
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Douglas
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 1 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/6765403

## Opinion text

Douglas, J.,
concurring. I concur with the judgment of the majority but for reasons other than those expressed by the majority. Having an allegedly “adequate remedy at law” is not a defense to a mandamus action filed pursuant to R.C. 149.43.
Sweeney and Resnick, JJ., concur in the foregoing concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6765403. Public record. Not legal advice.