Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Ohio Edison Co. v. Shaker

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1994No. 93-1533PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

For a writ of prohibition to issue, the respondent must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, the exercise of that power must be unauthorized by law, and refusal of the writ must result in injury for which no other adequate legal remedy exists. State ex rel. Albright v. Delaware Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d.40, 572 N.E.2d 1387; State ex rel. Lewis v. Warren Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 249, 556 N.E.2d 1184.

It is undisputed that Judge Shaker has exercised jurisdiction and that if not restrained he -will exercise further judicial power.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. WinterOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Kazmaier Supermarket, Inc. v. Toledo Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Milligan v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. State ex rel. Albright v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State ex rel. Pearson v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. HensonOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Allstate Insurance v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Corrigan v. Illuminating Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. DiFranco v. FirstEnergy Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
  5. DeLost v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012

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