State ex rel. Schmidt v. Gehrz
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.
It is well settled m this state that the writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and will not be issued where there is an adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. State ex rel. Meggett v. O’Neill, 104 Wis. 227, 80 N. W. 447; State ex rel. Tewalt v. Pollard, 112 Wis. 232, 87 N. W. 1107; State ex rel. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. v. Circuit Court, 134 Wis. 301, 114 N. W. 455; Petition of Pierce-Arrow M. C. Co. 143 Wis. 282, 127 N. W. 998. If the court had no jurisdiction to enter the injunc-tional order of March 7th against the relator, the proper method for securing a review thereof is by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. Circuit Court for Eau Claire CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- State ex rel. Rodd v. VerageWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- State ex rel. Tewalt v. PollardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kaminsky v. Milwaukee Acceptance Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. MeeseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930