State ex rel. Smith v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants assert that the court of appeals erred in granting the writ of prohibition. In order to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, appellee had to establish that Judge Smith was about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority, that the exercise of that power was unauthorized by law, and that denying the writ would have resulted in injury for which no other adequate remedy existed in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 115, 116, 647 N.E.2d 807, 809. It is uncontroverted that Judge Smith was about to exercise judicial authority in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- In re MurrayOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Enyart v. O'NeillOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- In re Adoption of RidenourOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Kaylor v. BrueningOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Willacy v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Soukup v. CelebrezzeOhio Supreme Court · 1998
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.