Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE STATE, EX REL. LA BOITEAUX COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, HAMILTON COUNTY, APPELLEE.

Prohibition — To prohibit court from exercising jurisdiction — Complaint dismissed, when — Action not unauthorized by law.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE, EX REL. LA BOITEAUX CO., v. COURT
(Jan 16, 1980)