State ex rel. Hampton v. Manos

Ohio Supreme Court December 12, 1973

State ex rel. Hampton v. Manos, 36 Ohio St. 2d 141 (Ohio 1973)

304 N.E.2d 597; 65 Ohio Op. 2d 339; 1973 Ohio LEXIS 294

Brown, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Relator’s sole contention is that he is unable to appear in the action pending in the Court of Appeals and defend in person and with counsel. He does not allege that he has made any effort to intervene in the Court of Appeals or been denied any participation by that court in the case.

Prohibition lies only where there is no other regular, ordinary and adequate remedy available to- relator. State, ex rel. Nolan, v. ClenDening (1915), 93 Ohio St. 264.

Relator’s complaint does not state a claim for which relief by prohibition may be granted. Therefore, respondent’s motion to dismiss is sustained and the writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name: [The State, ex rel.] Hampton v. Manos, Chief Justice
Status: Published