Legal Opinion

State ex rel. City of Canfield v. Frost

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1990No. 89-1064PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

For a writ of prohibí*14tion to issue, a relator must establish that the court or officer against whom the writ is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists. State, ex rel. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., v. State Personnel Bd. of Review (1989), 42 Ohio St. 3d 73, 537 N.E. 2d 212.

Here, however, the parties do not dispute that the commission is about to act, and Canfield does not assert the absence of an adequate remedy. Can-field instead contends that the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Johnson v. County CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State ex rel. Rollins v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State ex rel. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners v. State Personnel Board of ReviewOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State ex rel. Atha v. GansonOhio Court of Appeals · 1934

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Prosen v. DimoraOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. Schack v. Geneva Civil Service CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Peters v. City of JacksonOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Adebisi v. ToledoOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
  5. Brown v. Akron Metro. Hous. Auth., Unpublished Decision (1-14-2004)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004

1 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