Legal Opinion

Smith v. Warren

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 2000No. 00-429PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Smith asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his prohibition action. Smith’s assertion is meritless.

Prohibition will not issue if relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 316, 725 N.E.2d 663, 667. Appeal, not prohibition, is the remedy for the correction of errors or irregularities of a court having proper jurisdiction. State ex rel. Jackson v. Miller (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 541, 543, 700 N.E.2d 1273, 1275. Smith’s assertion of sentencing error is nonjurisdictional, and he had an adequate remedy…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Kreps v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Smith v. WalkerOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Jackson v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Jaffal v. CalabreseOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Bowen v. SheldonOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Bowen v. SheldonOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Smith v. WarrenOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State ex rel. Papp v. SpellacyOhio Court of Appeals · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API