Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Celeste v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 8, 1985No. 85-589PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Per curiam
Relators argue, in support of the allowance of the writ of prohibition, that R.C. Chapter 1157, made applicable to ODGF by Sub. S. B. No. 113, sets forth the exclusive and mandatory procedure to be followed in conservatorship and/or liquidation proceedings and that any attempt by respondent to circumvent the statutorily mandated proceedings amounts to a usurpation of judicial power. If established, such a claim is grounds for the allowance of a writ of prohibition. State, ex rel. Maynard, v. Whitfield (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 49; State, ex rel. Republic Steel Corp., v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State ex rel. Republic Steel Corp. v. Ohio Civil Rights CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- State ex rel. Maynard v. WhitfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1984
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. City of Northwood v. Court of Common PleasOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Charter Oak Federal Sav. Bank v. State of OhioDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1987
- State, Ex Rel. Polaroid Corp. v. DenihanOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
- In Re Liquidation of Valleywood Savings & Loan Ass'nOhio Court of Appeals · 1989