Legal Opinion

Goldstein v. Christiansen

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 14, 1994No. 94-396PublishedCited by 222 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants assert in their first, third, fourth, and fifth propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying their request for a writ of prohibition where the common pleas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. In order to obtain a writ of prohibition, relators must establish (1) that the court or officer against whom the writ is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) that the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) *235that denying a writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. WittigTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Kentucky Oaks Mall Co. v. Mitchell's Formal Wear, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. U.S. Sprint Communications Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Mr. K's Foods, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by222 opinions

  1. Allen King v. Eric TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  2. Darrell J. Bird v. Marshall Parsons, Stephen Vincent, George Decarlo, Dotster, Inc., and afternic.com, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  3. The Akro Corporation v. Ken LukerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
  4. Calphalon Corporation v. Jerry Rowlette Rowlette & Associates,defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  5. Conn v. ZakharovCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012

217 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