State ex rel. Lipinski v. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants assert in their first proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of prohibition because the dismissal of the previous common pleas court action barred Ingle’s subsequent declaratory judgment action in probate court based on res judicata.
In order to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, appellants must establish (1) that the probate court and Judge Corrigan are about to exercise judicial or quasijudicial power, (2) that the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) that denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- State v. SteffenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Keenan v. CalabreseOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Wozniak v. WozniakOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Corron v. CorronOhio Supreme Court · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- State ex rel. Rootstown Local School District Board of Education v. Portage County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Litty v. LeskovyanskyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. A & D Limited Partnership v. KeefeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. Toma v. CorriganOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Byard v. BylerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.