Garg v. Scott

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 1595

Syllabus

Mandamus prohibition community-control sanctions corporate formalities abuse of discretion personal jurisdiction mootness and ripeness. The relators who are the owner of a property on community control and other corporate entities who are owned by the owner commenced this mandamus and prohibition action because the municipal housing court threatened to require the owner to disclose all of his other corporate entities and their properties and to hold any housing violation by them as a community control violation against the original company. The relators alleged that the housing court did not have jurisdiction to hold the defendant company liable for any violations by the owner or his other companies. This court denied the applications for writs of mandamus and prohibition. The defendant company's appeal was an adequate remedy at law to protect the owner and his other companies. Moreover mandamus does not lie to control judicial discretion, but appeal can remedy abuses of discretion. Prohibition very rarely lies for lack of personal jurisdiction.