Ohio Supreme Court, 1926

State Ex Rel. Carmody v. Justice

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 9, 1926 · Matthias, Jones, Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson

150 N.E. 430; 114 Ohio St. 94; 114 Ohio St. (N.S.) 94; 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 113; 1926 Ohio LEXIS 394 (North Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State ex rel. Triplett v. Ross (Ohio 2006)
State ex rel. Heyside v. Calabrese (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Cordray v. Court of Claims (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Ohio Co. v. Maschari (Ohio 1990)
State ex rel. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1954)
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1949)
Shafer v. Common Pleas Court (Ohio 1940)
State Ex Rel. National Guarantee & Finance Co. v. Pfefferle (Ohio 1938)
State Ex Rel. Nicklaus v. McClelland (Ohio 1937)
State Ex Rel. White v. Jewell (Ohio 1937)
State Ex Rel. American Rolling Mill Co. v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1937)
State Ex Rel. Sparta Ceramic Co. v. Lindsay (Ohio 1936)
Ettinger v. Stahl (Ohio 1936)
State Ex Rel. George D. Harter Bank v. Lindsay (Ohio 1935)
State Ex Rel. MacDiarmid v. Eastman (Ohio 1928)
States, Ex Rel. v. Roettinger (Ohio Ct. App. 1926)
State ex rel. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Roettinger (Ohio Ct. App. 1926)
State ex rel. Roush v. Montgomery (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
State ex rel. Ohio Power Co. v. Harnishfeger (Ohio 1980)
State ex rel. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Riley (Ohio 1978)
State Ex Rel. B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Wanamaker (Ohio 1934)
State, Ex Rel. Willis v. Kautz (Ohio 1933)
State Ex Rel. Dworken v. Hopple (Ohio 1933)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Matthias, J.

Relators seek to have this court issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the court of common pleas from granting a writ of injunction.

*97 The office of the writ of prohibition is clearly stated by the text-writers on the subject, and has been announced by this court in numerous cases. The writ of prohibition is a specific remedy of an extraordinary character, and issues because of the absence or inadequacy of ordinary remedies. Its proper scope and purpose is to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their own jurisdiction, and prevent their encroachment upon the jurisdiction of other tribunals.

The question presented, therefore, in every instance where the issuance of a writ of prohibition is prayed, is whether it clearly appears that the court or tribunal whose action is sought to be prohibited has no jurisdiction of the cause which it is attempting to adjudicate, or is about to exceed its jurisdiction. It is never an appropriate remedy for the correction of errors, and does not lie to prevent an erroneous decision in a case which the court is authorized to adjudicate. This is but a concise restatement of the rule heretofore applied by this court in similar actions, among which may be cited State, ex rel. Nolan, v. Clen Dening, 93 Ohio St., 264, 112 N. E., 1029; State, ex rel. Garrison, v. Brough, 94 Ohio St., 115, 113 N. E., 683, and Kelley, Judge, v. State, ex rel. Gellner, 94 Ohio St., 331, 114 N. E., 255.

Concededly, the court of common pleas has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action in injunction now pending in that court. The court of common pleas is fully authorized to determine whether the facts are such as to authorize the issuance of an injunction and the application of the ease of Darst v. Phillips, 41 Ohio St., 514. If a *98 party thereto is aggrieved by the judgment entered by that court, and believes the same to be erroneous, he has a full and adequate remedy in error, and is therefore not entitled to the extraordinary writ of prohibition.

Writ denied.

Jones, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.