State ex rel. Dormody v. McClure

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Dormody v. McClure

364 N.E.2d 278, 50 Ohio St. 2d 335, 4 Ohio Op. 3d 476, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 423

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 29, 1977

DocketNos. 76-1237, 76-1275, 76-1366, 77-194 and 77-231

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 364 N.E.2d 278 (State ex rel. Dormody v. McClure) 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. Dormody v. McClure, 364 N.E.2d 278, 50 Ohio St. 2d 335, 4 Ohio Op. 3d 476, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 423 (Ohio 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relators seek writs of prohibition to prevent respondent from trying them for the offenses of driving while under the influence of alcohol (R. C. 4511.19), alleging that respondent has no jurisdiction due to the fact that the Uniform Traffic Ticket sanctioned by Traf. R. 21 does not provide that the signature of the issuing officer be verified.

Prohibition is not the proper remedy where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Dickison, v. Court of Common Pleas (1971), 28 Ohio St. 2d 179. Respondent has jurisdiction of the persons and subject matter. Any complaint with regard to the form of the ticket can be dealt with by motion prior to trial or in the ordinary course of appeal.

Since the relators have an adequate remedy at law, the writs are denied.

Writs denied.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, P. Brown, Sweeney and Looher, JJ., concur. W. Brown, J., not participating.

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