Scott v. Municipal Court
This text of 156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 179 (Scott v. Municipal Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiffs, not having availed themselves of the usual and adequate remedy of appeal, may not resort to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition as a substitute therefor. State, ex rel. Nicklaus, v. McClelland, Judge, 132 Ohio St., 447, 8 N. E. (2d), 565; Shafer v. Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, 137 Ohio St., 429, 30 N. E. (2d), 811; State, [181]*181ex rel. Ellis, v. McCabe et al., Judges, 138 Ohio St., 417, 35 N. E. (2d), 571; State, ex rel. Levy, v. Savord, 143 Ohio St., 451, 55 N. E. (2d), 735; State, ex rel. Miller, v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, 151 Ohio St., 397, 86 N. E. (2d), 464; State, ex rel. Clary, v. Probate Court of Preble County, 151 Ohio St., 497, 86 N. E. (2d), 765; State, ex rel. Sparto, v. Juvenile Court of Darke County, 153 Ohio St., 64, 90 N. E. (2d), 598; State, ex rel. Hough, v. Municipal Court of Cleveland, 153 Ohio St., 287, 91 N. E. (2d), 506.
The demurrers to the petition are sustained and a writ of prohibition is denied.
Writ demed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-municipal-court-ohio-1951.