Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Fyffe v. Pierce

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1988No. 88-929PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

“In order for a writ of prohibition to issue, relators must establish: (1) that the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) that the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) that the refusal of the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists.” Commercial Savings Bank v. Court of Common Pleas (1988), 35 Ohio St. 3d 192, 193, 519 N.E. 2d 647, 648-649.

Relators nowhere allege that they lack an adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, the writ cannot issue.

Assuming that relators had made allegations…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commercial Savings Bank v. Wyandot County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler CountyOhio Supreme Court · 1979

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. SoloveOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State ex rel. Largent v. FisherOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Sanquily v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State ex rel. Grandview Hospital & Medical Center v. GormanOhio Supreme Court · 1990

10 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