# State ex rel. Dunbar v. Ham

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 11, 1976 · 45 Ohio St. 2d 112

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755674

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Dunbar v. Ham, Judge, Common Pleas Court
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 11, 1976
- **Citations:** 45 Ohio St. 2d 112; 74 Ohio Op. 2d 213; 341 N.E.2d 594; 1976 Ohio LEXIS 544
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Herbert
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755674

## Opinion text

Herbert, J.,
concurring. There is raised in this cause an issue which is coming before the court with increasing frequency, i. e., will a writ of prohibition issue to prevent a court from denying the relator “due process of law?” In all but the unusual case, that query should be answered in the negative.
There are undoubtedly some violations of some rights which rise to a level of constitutional insult sufficient to deprive a court of jurisdiction to act. However, the. survival of order in our administration of justice requires that such cases be few and far between.
This court and Courts of Appeals are entrusted with a constitutional grant of power to issue writs of prohibition. Flowing with that markedly important authority is a concomitant responsibility to recognize that lower courts must remain free to adjudicate; by the very nature of our system, the freedom to adjudicate necessarily includes the freedom to err.
The watchword in prohibition cases is “jurisdiction,” and jurisdiction is made of hardy stuff.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755674. Public record. Not legal advice.