State ex rel. Tilford v. Crush
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
This court has consistently held that a claim in prohibition will not lie unless the following three requirements are met: (1) the court or officer against whom the writ is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists. State, ex rel. Yates, v. Court of Appeals for Montgomery Cty. (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 30, 512 N.E. 2d 343; State, ex rel. Judson, v. Spahr (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 111, 515 N.E. 2d 911; Manrow v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- State ex rel. Adams v. GusweilerOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Zakany v. ZakanyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Johnson v. County CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- State ex rel. Judson v. SpahrOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State ex rel. Gilla v. FellerhoffOhio Supreme Court · 1975
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Department of Administrative Services v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State Ex Rel. Csank v. JaffeOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State ex rel. CNG Financial Corp. v. NadelOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State ex rel. Pearson v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Ohio Edison Co. v. ParrottOhio Supreme Court · 1995
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.