State ex rel. Nolan v. ClenDening

Citations

• 93 Ohio St. (N.S.) 264

Syllabus

<p>Writ of prohibition — Purpose and scope — Ultra vires jurisdiction —Removal for misconduct in office• — Participation in referendum.</p> <p>1. Under the Ohio constitution of 1912 the writ of prohibition was added to the original jurisdiction of the supreme court.</p> <p>2. The writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ, to be used with great caution in the furtherance of justice and only where there is no other regular, ordinary and adequate remedy.</p> <p>3. The writ may be invoked against inferior courts or inferior tribunals, ministerial or otherwise, that possess incidentally judicial or quasi-judicial powers, to keep such courts or tribunals within the limits of their own jurisdiction.</p> <p>4. If such inferior courts or tribunals, in attempting to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, are proceeding in a matter wholly or partly outside of their jurisdiction, such inferior courts or tribunals are amenable to the writ of prohibition as to such ultra vires jurisdiction.</p> <p>5. Where inferior courts or tribunals are vested with power to remove public officials upon the ground of misconduct in office and written charges are filed before them declaring and defining such misconduct, if such charges do not constitute misconduct in office under the constitution of Ohio or the statutes of the state in such case made and provided, such inferior courts or tribunals are exceeding their jurisdiction in that behalf and may be enjoined by such writ of prohibition, if there be no other adequate remedy.</p> <p>6. In the case at bar none of the charges presented constitutes a legal charge of misconduct in office as known under the laws of Ohio, and by reason thereof the defendant board was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the same.</p>