State Ex Rel. Williams v. Markus, Unpublished Decision (2-13-2003)
State Ex Rel. Williams v. Markus, Unpublished Decision (2-13-2003)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} A writ of prohibition may be issued only after a petitioner establishes that (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) the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there exists no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. McKee v. Cooper (1974),
{¶ 3} In this matter, we find that relator failed to identify the specific proceeding he is trying to prevent from being adjudicated. Accordingly, relator failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
{¶ 4} Furthermore, we find that relator has failed to comply with R.C.
{¶ 5} The relator also failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077, unreported and State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899, unreported.
{¶ 6} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the petition. Relator to bear costs. It is further ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ denied.
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J., and ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.