Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Corrigan v. Griffin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 1984No. 84-359PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

“* * * It is well-settled that in order for prohibition to lie, three requirements must be satisfied: ‘(1) the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists.’ Ohio Bell v. Ferguson (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 74, 76 [15 O.O.3d 117]. See, also, State, ex rel. Henry, v. Britt (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 71, 73 [21 O.O.3d 45]; State, ex rel. Bell, v. Blair (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 95, 96 [72 O.O.2d 53].” State, ex rel. Dow…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Henry v. BrittOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. CalandraOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Bell v. BlairOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  5. State ex rel. Dow Chemical Co. v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1982

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Stern v. MascioOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Center, Inc. v. Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State ex rel. Tilford v. CrushOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Mason v. BurnsideOhio Supreme Court · 2007

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API