State ex rel. La Boiteaux Co. v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. La Boiteaux Co. v. Court of Common Pleas

399 N.E.2d 90, 61 Ohio St. 2d 60, 15 Ohio Op. 3d 85, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 611

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1405

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 399 N.E.2d 90 (State ex rel. La Boiteaux Co. v. Court of Common Pleas) 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. La Boiteaux Co. v. Court of Common Pleas, 399 N.E.2d 90, 61 Ohio St. 2d 60, 15 Ohio Op. 3d 85, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 611 (Ohio 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Three conditions must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition: (1) the court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power must be clearly unauthorized by law, and (3) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Bell, v. Blair (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 95. Any action to be taken by appellee court has not been demonstrated to be unauthorized by law. Thus, an action in prohibition is improper here.

For the above reason we affirm the dismissal of the action by the Court of Appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Three conditions must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition: (1) the court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power must be clearly unauthorized by law, and (3) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Bell, v. Blair (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 95. Any action to be taken by appellee court has not been demonstrated to be unauthorized by law. Thus, an action in prohibition is improper here.

For the above reason we affirm the dismissal of the action by the Court of Appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 N.E.2d 90, 61 Ohio St. 2d 60, 15 Ohio Op. 3d 85, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-la-boiteaux-co-v-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack