Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Moss v. Clair

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1947No. 31108PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.

We are met at the threshold of our consideration of this case by appellees’ claim that relators have mistaken their remedy and that a writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy where a judgment has. been rendered by the tribunal against which the writ is sought.

In the case of State, ex rel. Garrison, v. Brough, 94 Ohio St., 115, 113 N. E., 683, it was held:

“The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary legal remedy whose object is to prevent a court or tribunal of peculiar, limited or inferior power from assuming-jurisdiction of a matter beyond its cognizance. The writ cannot be made to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Garrison v. BroughOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Marsh v. Goldthorpe, MayorOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  3. State Ex Rel. Maysville Bridge Co. v. QuinlanOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  4. State Ex Rel. Frasch v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Roberts v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State, Ex Rel. Doe v. TracyOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Flannery v. SidwellOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. State, Ex Rel. Everson v. Municipal Ct, BarbertonOhio Court of Appeals · 1954
  4. State Ex Rel. Hobart Mfg. Co. v. BlakeOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  5. State Ex Rel. Ohio Stove Co. v. CoffinberryOhio Supreme Court · 1948

3 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