Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hardesty v. Williamson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1984No. 82-1781PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

This court has consistently held that entitlement to a writ of prohibition is dependent upon the demonstration of the following three requirements: “(1) the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists.” Ohio Bell v. Ferguson (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 74, 76 [15 O.O.3d 117]. See, also, State, ex rel. Wall, v. Grossman (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 4 [15 O.O.3d 2]; State, ex rel. Geauga County Budget Comm., v. Court (1982),…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State ex rel. Stefanick v. Municipal Court of MariettaOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. CalandraOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Crebs v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  5. State ex rel. Stokes v. Probate CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1970

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wagner ex rel. Luchene v. WagnerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. The STATE EX REL. O'MALLEY v. COLLIER-WILLIAMS, Judge.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  3. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Baker RossOhio Supreme Court · 2026
  4. State ex rel. Hassan v. BovaOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State ex rel. Tentman v. SundermannOhio Supreme Court · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API