Ohio Supreme Court, 1984

State ex rel. Corrigan v. Griffin

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 21, 1984 · Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney

14 Ohio St. 3d 26; 470 N.E.2d 894; 14 Ohio B. 328; 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1233

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Jones (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside (Ohio 2007)
State v. Arnett (Ohio 1986)
State ex rel. Lighttiser v. Spahr (Ohio 1985)
State ex rel. S.L. v. Rucker (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Center, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (Ohio 1990)
State ex rel. Tilford v. Crush (Ohio 1988)
State ex rel. Yates v. Court of Appeals (Ohio 1987)
State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio (Ohio 1996)
State, Ex Rel. Miller v. Gillie (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)
Manrow v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1985)

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.

“* * * It is well-settled that in order for prohibition to lie, three requirements must be satisfied: ‘(1) the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists.’ Ohio Bell v. Ferguson (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 74, 76 [15 O.O.3d 117]. See, also, State, ex rel. Henry, v. Britt (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 71, 73 [21 O.O.3d 45]; State, ex rel. Bell, v. Blair (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 95, 96 [72 O.O.2d 53].” State, ex rel. Dow Chemical Co., v. Court (1982), 2 Ohio St. 3d 119, 120.

The court of appeals denied the writ, finding that appellee was authorized to enter the order in question and that appellant did not avail himself of the remedy which was available by way of appeal.

We agree. The trial court has authority to enter pretrial orders regarding discovery. Crim. R. 16. Moreover, appellant could have sought leave to appeal pursuant to R.C. 2945.67, wherein any errors with respect to appellee’s order could have been raised. The availability of an appeal under R.C. 2945.67 is an adequate remedy at law sufficient to preclude the granting of an extraordinary writ. State, ex rel. Cleveland, v. Calandra (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 121, 122 [16 O.O.3d 143]; State, ex rel. Zoller, v. Talbert (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 329, 330 [16 O.O.3d 391].

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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