Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Connor v. McGough
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 15, 1989No. 89-443PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Per curiam
The crucial issue is whether prohibition is an appropriate remedy to vindicate a nonresident’s right to due process thereby preventing a trial court from improperly asserting personal jurisdiction over him. We find prohibition appropriate, and issue that writ.
Since prohibition is an extraordinary writ, we do not grant it routinely or easily:
“For a writ of prohibition to issue, a relator must ordinarily establish: (1) that the court against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial power, (2) that the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) that, if the writ is denied, he…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. WittigTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Goldstein v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Clark v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.