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. THE CENTRAL STORES CO. v. MAIDEN, JR., JUDGE.

Prohibition — Writ not available where other adequate remedy — Not substitute for appeal — Not available to prevent anticipated erroneous judgment.

Per Curiam.

The motion to attach the answer and cross-petition to the petition in prohibition is allowed and it is unnecessary to pass on the motion to dismiss the petition inasmuch as the court is disposing of the case on the demurrer.

The determinative question presented is whether, under the facts, the company is entitled to a writ of prohibition. The writ will ordinarily be awarded where there is no other adequate remedy and will not be awarded as a substitute for appeal or to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. State, ex rel. Winnefeld, v. Court of Common Pleas, 159 Ohio St. 225, 112 N.E.2d 27.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MIDDLETON, TAFT, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART and LAMNECK, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE EX REL. v. JUDGE
(Oct 27, 1954)