State ex rel. de Weaver v. Faust

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. de Weaver v. Faust

205 N.E.2d 14, 1 Ohio St. 2d 100, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 383, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 570

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1965

DocketNo. 38693

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 205 N.E.2d 14 (State ex rel. de Weaver v. Faust) 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.

Bluebook

State ex rel. de Weaver v. Faust, 205 N.E.2d 14, 1 Ohio St. 2d 100, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 383, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 570 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Schneider, J.

The remedy of prohibition is not available where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The relator has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas under authority of Sections 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, Revised Code.

The purpose of those sections is to grant relief from the specific mischief which relator fears, namely, that the respondent board will refuse, after request, to afford relator the opportunity to use its power of subpoena to produce evidence ' on his behalf. See Section 2506.03 (D), Revised Code.

As to relator’s contention that he will be irreparably damaged if the respondent board revokes his license to engage in his occupation as a plumber, no serious constitutional problem is presented. His position is no less than if the board had temporarily suspended his license in advance of and pending the hearing. Where a licensing system is designed to provide control over licensees for the protection of the public health or safety and the licensing agency is informed that a licensed mechanic or artisan is seriously endangering the public, summary administrative suspension of the license without notice or hearing, pending a later hearing and subject to subsequent [102]*102judicial review, is neither unusual nor inappropriate, nor violative of constitutional standards. State v. Stehlek, 262 Wis. 642, 56 N. W. 2d 514; R. A. Holman & Co., Inc., v. Securities and Exchange Comm. (C. C. A., D. C.), 299 F. 2d 127.

In this case, if, after hearing, the board should revoke the license, as respondent fears, and if he pursues his appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, he will have the opportunity to avail himself of the benefit of Section 2505.17 of the Revised Code by applying to that court for a stay of the order of revocation pending the determination of the appeal.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Schneider, J.

The remedy of prohibition is not available where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The relator has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas under authority of Sections 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, Revised Code.

The purpose of those sections is to grant relief from the specific mischief which relator fears, namely, that the respondent board will refuse, after request, to afford relator the opportunity to use its power of subpoena to produce evidence ' on his behalf. See Section 2506.03 (D), Revised Code.

As to relator’s contention that he will be irreparably damaged if the respondent board revokes his license to engage in his occupation as a plumber, no serious constitutional problem is presented. His position is no less than if the board had temporarily suspended his license in advance of and pending the hearing. Where a licensing system is designed to provide control over licensees for the protection of the public health or safety and the licensing agency is informed that a licensed mechanic or artisan is seriously endangering the public, summary administrative suspension of the license without notice or hearing, pending a later hearing and subject to subsequent [102]*102judicial review, is neither unusual nor inappropriate, nor violative of constitutional standards. State v. Stehlek, 262 Wis. 642, 56 N. W. 2d 514; R. A. Holman & Co., Inc., v. Securities and Exchange Comm. (C. C. A., D. C.), 299 F. 2d 127.

In this case, if, after hearing, the board should revoke the license, as respondent fears, and if he pursues his appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, he will have the opportunity to avail himself of the benefit of Section 2505.17 of the Revised Code by applying to that court for a stay of the order of revocation pending the determination of the appeal.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 N.E.2d 14, 1 Ohio St. 2d 100, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 383, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-de-weaver-v-faust-ohio-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack