State Ex Rel. Meyer v. Conn

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Meyer v. Conn

84 N.E.2d 213, 151 Ohio St. 8, 151 Ohio St. (N.S.) 8, 38 Ohio Op. 479, 1949 Ohio LEXIS 390

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 9, 1949

Docket31485

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.E.2d 213 (State Ex Rel. Meyer v. Conn) 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. Meyer v. Conn, 84 N.E.2d 213, 151 Ohio St. 8, 151 Ohio St. (N.S.) 8, 38 Ohio Op. 479, 1949 Ohio LEXIS 390 (Ohio 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The foregoing summary of facts is sufficient to demonstrate that relator seeks a writ of prohibition either to prevent an erroneous decision or as a substitute for an appeal.

The writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy for the correction of errors and does not lie to prevent an erroneous decision in' a ease which the court is authorized to adjudicate. Kelley, Judge, v. State, ex rel. Gellner, 94 Ohio St., 331, 114 N. E., 255; State, ex rel. Carmody, v. Justice, Judge, 114 Ohio St., 94, 150 N. E., 430; State, ex rel. Norris, v. Hodapp, Judge, 135 Ohio St., 26, 18 N. E. (2d), 984.

The extraordinary writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ which may not be invoked if the remedy of appeal is available. State, ex rel. Levy, v. Savord, 143 Ohio St., 451, 55 N. E. (2d), 735; 32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 586, Section 24.

For the foregoing reasons a writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

Wbygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman,, Stewart, Turner and Tabt, JJ., concur.

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