TILFORD v. CRUSH

No. 87-795.

39 Ohio St. 3d 174 (1988)

[THE STATE, EX REL.] TILFORD, APPELLANT, v. CRUSH, JUDGE, APPELLEE.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided October 26, 1988.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John C. Scanlon, for appellant.

Arthur M. Ney, Jr., prosecuting attorney, James W. Harper and David L. Sellers, for appellee.


Per Curiam.

This court has consistently held that a claim in prohibition will not lie unless the following three requirements are met: (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) it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists. State, ex rel. Yates, v. Court of Appeals for Montgomery Cty. (1987)...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases