Page v. Riley
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants assert in their propositions of law that Judge Riley erred in denying their request for extraordinary relief in prohibition. In order to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, appellants must establish that (1) Judge Riley is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause injury to appellants for which no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists. McAuley v. Smith (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 393, 395, 696 N.E.2d 572, 574. In this case, it is uncontroverted that Judge Riley is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State ex rel. Fogle v. SteinerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. V Companies v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Logsdon v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Rootstown Local School District Board of Education v. Portage County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Enyart v. O'NeillOhio Supreme Court · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- State ex rel. Kreps v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Hummel v. SadlerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State ex rel. Hummel v. SadlerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State ex rel. Goldberg v. Mahoning County Probate CourtOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State ex rel. Douglas v. BurlewOhio Supreme Court · 2005
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.