Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Barton v. Butler County Board of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 20, 1988No. 88-1730PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent argues that relators have an adequate remedy at law via an injunction. We agree and find an additional reason why prohibition is inappropriate.

For a writ of prohibition to issue, a court must find that the respondent is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, that the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and that relator has no other adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Judson, v. Spahr (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 111, 515 N.E. 2d 911. This court has held that the Secretary of State exercises quasi-judicial power when determining the sufficiency of referendum…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Judson v. SpahrOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Kelley v. State ex rel. GellnerOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  3. State Ex Rel. Patton v. MyersOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  4. State Ex Rel. Harrison v. PerryOhio Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Corn v. RussoOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Essig v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court · 2004

11 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