State ex rel. Baker v. State Personnel Board of Review
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Baker and Johnson assert in their propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing their claims for extraordinary relief in prohibition and mandamus. For the reasons that follow, we find that these assertions are meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Baker and Johnson initially contend that they are entitled to a writ of prohibition because SPBR patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed. If an inferior tribunal patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, prohibition will lie to prevent any future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Nolan v. NolanOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Fogle v. SteinerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- In re Termination of Employment of PrattOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- City of Hubbard ex rel. Creed v. SaulineOhio Supreme Court · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Giancola v. Azem (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- State ex rel. Ullmann v. HayesOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State ex rel. Fiser v. Kolesar (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- Weber v. Troy Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 07 Cah 04 0017 (3-13-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.