Ohio Supreme Court, 1980

State ex rel. Wall v. Grossman

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 2, 1980 · Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney

61 Ohio St. 2d 4; 398 N.E.2d 789; 15 Ohio Op. 3d 2; 1980 Ohio LEXIS 600

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

McAuley v. Smith (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State Ex Rel. J. Richard Gaier Co. v. Kessler (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
State Ex Rel. Electrolert, Inc. v. Lindeman (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Ohio Mall Contractors, Inc. v. Dickinson (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
State v. Anderson (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
State ex rel. Hardesty v. Williamson (Ohio 1984)
State ex rel. Geauga County Budget Commission v. Court of Appeals for Geauga County (Ohio 1982)
State ex rel. Smith v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1982)
State ex rel. Henry v. Britt (Ohio 1981)
State v. Thomas (Ohio 1980)
State ex rel. Parker v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1980)
State ex rel. Kynard v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1980)
DuBose v. Court of Common Pleas of Trumbull County (Ohio 1980)

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

Per Curiam.

The conditions which must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition are: “(1) The court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which *5there is no other adequate remedy.” State, ex rel. Lehmann, v. Cmich (1970), 23 Ohio St. 2d 11.

Here, as in State, ex rel. Adler, v. Court (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 1, decided this day, there is no question of the jurisdiction of the court to hear the pending case. The Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Juvenile Division, has jurisdiction to proceed to disposition of a case charging a violation of R. C. 2151.41.

Further, appellant’s allegations do not support any unauthorized usurpation of judicial power nor do they show that appeal is not an adequate remedy at law herein. See Adler, supra, and cases cited therein.

For reasons of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint in prohibition is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

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