Opinion

State ex rel. Bell v. Blair

  • 43 Ohio St. 2d 95
  • 72 Ohio Op. 2d 53
  • 330 N.E.2d 902
  • 1975 Ohio LEXIS 545
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 9, 1975
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern
Cited by
16 cases
Authority
More cited than 98.3%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Three general 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. State, ex rel. McKee, v. Cooper (1974), 40 Ohio St. 2d 65 , 320 N. E. 2d 286 ; State, ex rel. Nolan, v. Clen Dening (1915), 93 Ohio St. 264 , 112 N. E. 1029 .

*97 Under the facts of this case, appellant has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law to contest the trial court’s overruling of his motion to dismiss. Appellant has been charged with committing a minor misdemean- or. The maximum penalty on conviction for this class of offense is a $100 fine. R. C. 2929.21(D). On May 6, 1974, two days after appellant was served with the summons in the speeding case, the Municipal Court set a trial date for June 12. Assuming that upon termination of this prohibition action the Municipal Court will reschedule the trial for the earliest possible date, the existence of a right to appeal the final order of the trial court provides this appellant with an adequate remedy at law. See State, ex rel. Wentz, v. Correll (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 101 , 322 N. E. 2d 889 ; State, ex rel. Woodbury, v. Spitler (1974), 40 Ohio St. 2d 1 , 318 N. E. 2d 165 . Failure of the Municipal Court to reschedule the criminal trial in compliance with this opinion will prevent appellant from having an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the trial court’s final judgment. See State, ex rel. Lotz, v. Hover (1962), 174 Ohio St. 68 , 186 N. E. 2d 841 , writ withdrawn on other grounds, 174 Ohio St. 380 , 189 N. E. 2d 433 ; State, ex rel. Micheel, v. Vamos (1945), 144 Ohio St. 628 , 60 N. E. 2d 305 .

For the foregoing reasons, 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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.