State, ex rel. Baran v. Fuerst (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 413. Where a R.C. 124.34 order is withdrawn by the appointing authority and appellant lacks a decision from which to appeal, appellant has no adequate remedy at law and a mandamus action to recover back pay is appropriate.

State, ex rel. Baran v. Fuerst (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 413. Mandamus is a proper remedy for reinstatement and back pay when an employee is removed from his position contrary to law and the employee is wrongfully excluded from employment during that period.

State, ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 453. A duty to pay lost wages exists when civil service employees are wrongfully excluded from public employment, notwithstanding the absence of a specific order to make such payment; employees reinstated at wages lower than they previously enjoyed must affirmatively show the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for a writ of mandamus rectifying the pertinent pay cuts to issue.

State, ex rel. Bailey v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191. An appellant must exhaust his available administrative remedies by making a request for rehearing, where available under the administrative code, before filing a complaint in mandamus with the court of appeals.

Bowling Green State University v. Williamson (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 141. When a petition is filed which properly states a cause of action in mandamus, neither the Supreme Court of Ohio nor the Court of Appeals has authority to exercise discretion but is required to exercise its original jurisdiction in mandamus; further, when same is filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio or the Court of Appeals and the exercise of jurisdiction is invoked, and it is determined that the employee has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of appeal, neither court has the authority to exercise discretion and are required to deny the writ.

Bispeck v. Trumbull County (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 26. An action in mandamus is a proper course by which laid-off county employees may seek to compel their employer to abide by orders of the state personnel board of review disaffirming their layoffs (citing State, ex rel. Potten v. Kuth (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 321).

State, ex rel. Zone v. City of Cleveland (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 1. Mandamus will not lie to compel a municipality to pay back wages to municipal skilled employees who contend they were de facto appointed to "foreman" positions by their supervisors and thus were entitled to the prevailing wage rates for such positions established between skilled building tradesmen and employers in the private sector, in the absence of a prior appointment to those positions.

State, ex rel. Carter v. Cleveland City School District Board of Education (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 105. Mandamus is a proper remedy for the reinstatement of members of the classified civil service who tendered their resignations upon certain terms and conditions which the appointing authority was found to have violated.

State, ex rel. Krieger v. City of Broadview Heights (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 139. Pursuant to R.C. 124.44, where a qualified individual has been certified by the civil service commission as the person receiving the highest rating on the pertinent examination, he or she is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering his or her promotion to the position of chief of police.

State, ex rel. Hamlin v. Collins (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 117. Employee is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the board to award back pay if the damages are proven under the "with certainty" standard; the term "with certainty" refers to the quality of the proof that the employee demonstrates in proving that he has a clear legal right to the relief.

State, ex rel. Crockett v. Robinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 363. Pursuant to a writ of mandamus, a reinstated public employee is entitled to compensation due him for the period of time during which he was wrongfully excluded from his employement, provided the amount recoverable is established with certainty and the employee has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to secure such payment; the employee may not recover interest or receive credit for vacation, holiday or sick leave hours which he would have received but might not have used during the period of his discharge.

State, ex rel. Pell v. City of Westlake (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 360. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel an employer to promote an employee to a vacant position when the employee has the right to promotional vacancy after taking a test for the vacant position and receiving the highest grade.

State, ex rel. Ogan v. Teater (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 235. An appointing authority may, in a mandamus action to enforce an order of the state personnel board of review disaffirming a layoff, assert the affirmative defense of an abuse of discretion by the board.

State, ex rel. Bargar v. Ross (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 18. Writ of mandamus denied when employee has exhausted his plain and adequate remedy of appeal and was unsuccessful on the appeal.

State, ex rel. Fry v. Ferguson (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 252. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel responsible officials to pay classified state employees at the rates of pay provided by statute.

State, ex rel. Borsuk v. City of Cleveland (1972), 28 Ohio St.2d 224. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel reinstatement of an employee by a municipality when the municipality disaffirms the employee's termination and that order becomes final upon the exhaustion of the remedy of appeal.

State, ex rel. Stelzer v. Manton (1963), 174 Ohio St. 266. Writ of mandamus denied when the employee has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

State, ex rel. Moran v. Welling (1961), 172 Ohio St. 516. Writ of mandamus denied when the employee has an adequate remedy by way of appeal.

State, ex rel. Adams v. Wallace (1993), 92 Ohio App.3d 462; cert denied (1994) ___ Ohio St.3d ___. Mandamus would issue to require directors of department of human services and department of administrative services to reinstate division chiefs in their respective positions in classified civil service after directors had purported to change chiefs' positions to unclassified service retroactive to time of their respective original appointments; statutory provision stating that division chiefs were in classified service controlled over statute providing that unclassified service included deputies and assistants of elective or principal executive officers authorized to act for and in place of their principals, or holding fiduciary relation to such principals.

State, ex rel. Butterbaugh v. Ross County Board of Commissioners (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 826. Action in mandamus is proper course by which wrongfully discharged public employees may seek to compel their employer to abide by orders of the state personnel board of review disaffirming their discharges. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Butterbaugh v. Ross County Board of Commissioners (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 826. Reinstated public employee may maintain action in mandamus to recover compensation due for period of wrongful exclusion from employment, provided amount recoverable is established with certainty; this compensation is subject to reduction by amount employee earned or, in exercise of due diligence, could have earned in appropriate employment during period of exclusion. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Montague v. Police and Firemen's Disability and Pension Fund (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 661. Board's determination was not supported by some evidence on record where determination failed to give any explanation of basis for decision, evidence relied upon, or reasoning utilized in reaching decision; appellant was entitled to writ of mandamus ordering trustees to vacate old order and enter new order.

State, ex rel. Click v. Thormyer (1958), 105 Ohio App. 479. Where a job is abolished "as a matter of economy" and a civil service employee discharged, and immediately thereafter another employee is hired under a different classification but to perform substantially the same duties and to work with the same crew, and where both job classifications are in the same pay range, such purported abolishment is a subterfuge and is not effective, and the discharged employee is entitled to a writ of mandamus restoring him to his former position.

Shoemaker v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Mar. 17, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APE-08-1180, unreported, 1994 WL 85587. Where there is substantial merger of two positions for purpose of economy and no proof of ulterior motive by employing officer, or discrimination upon political, religious or other improper grounds, writ of mandamus will not be granted to require reinstatement of employee discharged as result of merger (citing State, ex rel. Stine v. McCaw (1940), 137 Ohio St. 13). View SPBR Order

Blinn v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Nov. 24, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1088, unreported, 1992 WL 356321. Pursuant to a writ of mandamus, the court of claims will not award prejudgment interest on a judgment from another court.

State, ex rel. Thomas v. Jakeway (Nov. 24, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-330, unreported, 1992 WL 356247. Mandamus will not issue where respondents are not at the present time under a clear legal duty to perform a requested act due to a pendency of appeal before the state personnel board of review of relators' improper separation from state service.

Worthington Nursing Home v. Creasy (July 27, 1982), Franklin App. No. 81AP-533, unreported, 1982 WL 4297. The standard of review to which a petition for a writ of mandamus is subjected is stricter than that applied in a declaratory judgment action; where state officials have failed to comply with a "clear legal duty," a mandamus against state officials is a proper action. View Court of Appeals Decision

State, ex rel. Hennekes v. North College Hill Fire Dept. (Nov. 5, 1980), Hamilton App. No. C-790643, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy for a disability removal when the removal order does not comply with R.C. 124.34.

State, ex rel. Cohen v. Wilkins (Oct. 16, 1980), Franklin App. No. 80AP-53, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel pay supplements when the pay supplements were lawfully due employee under the terms of her contract.

State, ex rel. Fischer v. City of Cleveland (Dec. 6, 1979), Cuyahoga App. No. 39915, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the city to fill certain vacancies when Ohio law requires cities to fill vacancies from eligible lists and the city has a legal duty to do so.

State, ex rel. Kaminsky v. Civil Service Commission (Sept. 5, 1979), Cuyahoga App. No. 40365, unreported. Writ of mandamus denied when employee seeks to compel the civil service commission to hear his appeal from a suspension order when civil service rule 9.21 provides that the employee does not have a legal right to appeal his suspension with the commission and the employee has an adequate remedy at law by means of a declaratory judgment.

State, ex rel. Dillinger v. Runkle (July 29, 1979), Williams App. No. WMS-79-5, unreported. R.C. 2731.04 governs actions in mandamus in the common pleas court and needs not be complied with in the Court of Appeals.

State, ex rel. Wagner v. Board of Education (Dec. 21, 1978), Franklin App. No. 78AP-441, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy when the removal of a classified employee does not comply with R.C. 124.34.

State, ex rel. Baker v. Giles (Oct. 10, 1978, and Dec. 7, 1978), Franklin App. No. 78-AP-440, unreported. Writ of mandamus denied when employee shows no clear legal right to relief.

State, ex rel. Bahramian v. Stevens (Sept. 27, 1978), Hamilton App. No. C-77404, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel employers to reinstate employee when there was no authority to remove the employee; but, mandamus will be denied when a necessary party is not a party to the action nor has yet had an opportunity to act in the matter of the employee's discharge.

State, ex rel. Holloway v. Teater (June 22, 1978), Franklin App. No. 77AP-136, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy for reinstatement and back pay when an employee is wrongfully laid off for an alleged lack of funds.

State, ex rel. Hildebrand v. City of Mansfield (June 14, 1978), Richland App. No. CA-1704, unreported. A writ of mandamus can be founded upon an order reinstating employee when the order of the commission contains only the signature of one member because this does not render it void.

State, ex rel. Bechstein v. Board of Education (May 12, 1978), Wood App. No. WD-77-54, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy for reinstatement but not to order back pay when employee failed to establish the amount due with certainty.

State, ex rel. Gore v. Gray (Aug. 10, 1977), Medina App. No. CA718, unreported. Writ of mandamus denied to employee seeking reinstatement when he had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him.

State ex rel. Lowe v. Board of Education (July 26, 1977), Franklin App. No. 76AP-857, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel reinstatement after coerced resignation when employee's resignation was not a voluntary one and the action of the board in accepting the resignation could reasonably be considered to be the order of removal from which an appeal could be taken pursuant to R.C. 124.34.

State, ex rel. Henslee v. Krabach (Oct. 14, 1976), Franklin App. No. 76AP-559, unreported. Writ of mandamus denied as to an employee who was restored to state employment subsequent to a layoff and upon her return was given a different desk, chair and physical tasks than she had before the layoff, when work assignments and internal personal management decisions are the prerogative of the employer.

State, ex rel. Angelo v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Sept. 6, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CVH11-8167, unreported. Where appellant's primary concern is reinstatement to her position, constitutional assertions made to obtain a writ of mandamus or injunctive relief are merely arguments raised to bypass an administrative proceeding; appellant may not bypass an administrative proceeding, especially where the administrative proceeding would provide complete relief under the circumstances. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision

State, ex rel. Arthurs v. Tuscarawas County Engineer (Feb. 1987), Tuscarawas Co., No. 86-CVO80272, unreported. In a mandamus action the reviewing court will not weigh the evidence if there is "some evidence" to sustain the action taken by the administrative agency. View Common Pleas Decision

Gearhart v. City of Cuyahoga Falls (Mar. 10, 1980), Summit Co., No. CV-78-9-2013, unreported. Writ of mandamus denied when employers were justified in refusing employee's merit pay increase due to unsatisfactory job performance and there was no need under city ordinance for a formal evaluation procedure.