Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Ohio State Racing Commission v. Walton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1988No. 88-108PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

Regarding mandamus, relators argue that they have a clear right to relief, that respondent has a clear duty to grant the relief, and that they have no plain and adequate remedy at law. Regarding prohibition, they argue that respondent is about to exercise judicial power that is unauthorized by law and that injury will result for which there is no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. We agree and allow a peremptory writ of prohibition prohibiting respondent from conducting further proceedings in the Paul case and a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering respondent to transfer…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Butler v. DemisOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State ex rel. Liberty Mills, Inc. v. LockerOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. State, Ex Rel. v. Ind. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947
  4. State ex rel. McCoy v. LawtherOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. State ex rel. Chester Township Board of Trustees v. MakowskiOhio Supreme Court · 1984

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Banc One Corp. v. WalkerOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State ex rel. Lyons v. ZaleskiOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State, Ex Rel. Paul v. Ohio State Racing CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. State ex rel. Yeaples v. GallOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

7 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