Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1995No. 95-64PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Per curiam

Relators assert in their first and second propositions of law that they are entitled to a writ of prohibition. To obtain a writ of prohibition, relators must establish (1) that Judge DeCessna is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) that exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) that denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Fowler v. Smith (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 357, 359, 626 N.E.2d 950, 952.

Relators contend that Judge DeCessna disregarded the mandate of the court of appeals.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Nolan v. NolanOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Hawley v. RitleyOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State ex rel. Potain v. MathewsOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State ex rel. Fowler v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State Ex Rel. Davey v. OwenOhio Supreme Court · 1937

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

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Miley v. ParrottOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Dannaher v. CrawfordOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Weiss v. HooverOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Culgan v. CollierOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  5. State ex rel. Cordray v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 2009

68 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