Summary
In Transairco, supra, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the complaint for prohibition on the grounds that the relator had failed to allege that the trial court was exceeding its jurisdiction.
Summary of this case from State, ex Rel. Phillips, v. PolcarOpinion
No. 75-520
Decided January 14, 1976.
Prohibition — To restrain enforcement of interlocutory orders — Complaint dismissed, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
On October 1, 1974, Transairco, Inc., and its subsidiaries, filed an original action in prohibition in the Court of Appeals, requesting that court to restrain the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County and Judge Robert V. Wood, from enforcing various interlocutory orders issued against relators in the case of River Downs, Inc., v. Queen City Turf Club, No. A-746686.
The Court of Appeals granted respondents' motion requesting dismissal of the amended complaint in prohibition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
Brouse McDowell Co., L.P.A., Mr. Andrew J. Michaels and Ms. Linda B. Kersker, for appellants.
Mr. Simon L. Leis, Jr., prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Arthur M. Ney, for appellees.
Relators complain about "the continued prejudiced mode of proceeding in the Common Pleas Court."
In the recent case of State, ex rel. Bell, v. Blair (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 95, 96, this court stated that the following conditions must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition:
"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 there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
In the appeal before us, the complaint does not allege that the court is about to exercise any judicial power unauthorized by law. Further, it does appear that there is an adequate remedy for appellant in the ordinary course of law if this writ is denied.
This court does not pass upon relators' contention that Sup. R. 4 of this court was violated in this case, as it is not relevant to this court's determination herein.
Relators have not set forth facts which would entitle them to a writ of prohibition, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.