State ex rel. McCaffrey v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. McCaffrey v. City of Cleveland

377 N.E.2d 490, 54 Ohio St. 2d 346, 8 Ohio Op. 3d 355, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 568

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 14, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1031

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 377 N.E.2d 490 (State ex rel. McCaffrey v. City of Cleveland) 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. McCaffrey v. City of Cleveland, 377 N.E.2d 490, 54 Ohio St. 2d 346, 8 Ohio Op. 3d 355, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 568 (Ohio 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Prohibition is a writ designed to prevent a tribunal from proceeding in a matter in which it seeks to usurp or exercise authority with which it had not been invested by law. Marsh v. Goldthorpe (1930), 123 Ohio St. 103.

However, if the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the question before it, a writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent it from exercising such authority. State, ex rel. Dayton, v. Kenealy (1960), 170 Ohio St. 320.

In this cause there is no showing by relator that the members of the Cleveland Civil Service Commission, or the other named respondents, are in any manner attempting to usurp a function with which they are not properly invested by law.

For the reason that a writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Loches, JJ., concur. HERBERT, J., concurs in the judgment.

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