State ex rel. Woodbury v. Coller

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Woodbury v. Coller

287 N.E.2d 802, 31 Ohio St. 2d 195, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 402, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 401

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 1972

DocketNo. 72-208

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 N.E.2d 802 (State ex rel. Woodbury v. Coller) 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. Woodbury v. Coller, 287 N.E.2d 802, 31 Ohio St. 2d 195, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 402, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 401 (Ohio 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This prohibition action is directed to two judges and a prosecuting attorney. The criminal cases which are the subject of the instant prohibition action are no longer assigned to appellee Judge Floyd A. Coller. Prohibition does not lie as to one who neither claims nor is about to exercise jurisdiction.

A writ of prohibition is sought to prevent appellee Daniel T. Spitler from proceeding with the prosecution of the appellants’ criminal cases. Prohibition will not lie as to a prosecutor who is duty bound to proceed to prosecute pursuant to indictment. The prosecuting attorney will be required to carry out any proper agreements entered into with defense counsel which were relied upon by appellants to their prejudice. The prosecuting attorney, in oral argument before this court, asserted his intention to carry out completely such agreements.

These cases have been assigned to the appellee Judge Kenneth W. Adams for disposition, including trial. There is nothing in the record in this cause upon which this court could properly base the granting of a writ of prohibition directed to Judge Adams.

For the foregoing reasons, the dismissal of the action in prohibition by the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

0’Neill., C. J., Schneider,, Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Leach and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This prohibition action is directed to two judges and a prosecuting attorney. The criminal cases which are the subject of the instant prohibition action are no longer assigned to appellee Judge Floyd A. Coller. Prohibition does not lie as to one who neither claims nor is about to exercise jurisdiction.

A writ of prohibition is sought to prevent appellee Daniel T. Spitler from proceeding with the prosecution of the appellants’ criminal cases. Prohibition will not lie as to a prosecutor who is duty bound to proceed to prosecute pursuant to indictment. The prosecuting attorney will be required to carry out any proper agreements entered into with defense counsel which were relied upon by appellants to their prejudice. The prosecuting attorney, in oral argument before this court, asserted his intention to carry out completely such agreements.

These cases have been assigned to the appellee Judge Kenneth W. Adams for disposition, including trial. There is nothing in the record in this cause upon which this court could properly base the granting of a writ of prohibition directed to Judge Adams.

For the foregoing reasons, the dismissal of the action in prohibition by the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

0’Neill., C. J., Schneider,, Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Leach and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 N.E.2d 802, 31 Ohio St. 2d 195, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 402, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-woodbury-v-coller-ohio-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack