State ex rel. Peto v. Thomas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Peto v. Thomas

263 N.E.2d 248, 24 Ohio St. 2d 38, 53 Ohio Op. 2d 21, 1970 Ohio LEXIS 328

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 1970

DocketNo. 70-114

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 263 N.E.2d 248 (State ex rel. Peto v. Thomas) 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. Peto v. Thomas, 263 N.E.2d 248, 24 Ohio St. 2d 38, 53 Ohio Op. 2d 21, 1970 Ohio LEXIS 328 (Ohio 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator, a liquor permittee, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent respondents, the Liquor Control Commission and the Director of the Department of Liquor Control, from entering his permit premises and [39]*39seizing certain allegedly obscene publications which he has on his premises for sale. Eespondents demurred to relator’s amended petition.

Eespondents have jurisdiction over relator’s permit premises. Eelator has available adequate remedies. Prohibition does not lie where there is an adquate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

The Ohio Eules of Civil Procedure, which became effective July 1, 1970, abolish demurrers and are to govern pending actions, where feasible and no injustice would result. Accordingly, respondents’ demurrer is treated as a motion to dismiss, and the motion is sustained.

Petition dismissed.

O’Niell, C. J., Leach, Schneider, Herbert, Duncan, Corrigan and Stern, JJ., concur. Leach, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Matthias, J.

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