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 Supreme Court·Decided January 16, 1980·No. No. 79-1405·Published·Cited by 11 cases

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

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).

399 N.E.2d 90 (State ex rel. La Boiteaux Co. v. Court of Common Pleas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Auto-Owners Insurance v. Wortham
893 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
State v. Lucas, Unpublished Decision (9-17-2004)
2004 Ohio 4929 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
State Ex Rel. ABX Air, Inc. v. Ringland
779 N.E.2d 1085 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2002)
State Ex Rel. Dental Care Plus, Inc. v. Sunderland
735 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999)
State Ex Rel. Jefferys v. Watkins
637 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)
Williams v. Banner Buick, Inc.
574 N.E.2d 579 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1989)