State ex rel. Dormody v. McClure, s. 76-1237
| Decision Date | 29 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | 77-194 and 77-231,76-1366,Nos. 76-1237,76-1275,s. 76-1237 |
| Citation | 364 N.E.2d 278,50 Ohio St.2d 335 |
| Parties | , 4 O.O.3d 476 The STATE ex rel. DORMODY et al. v. McCLURE, Judge. The STATE ex rel. DUDAS et al. v. McCLURE, Judge. The STATE ex rel. HAJEK et al. v. McCLURE, Judge. The STATE ex rel. STROUD et al. v. McCLURE, Judge. The STATE ex rel. VEAL et al. v. McCLURE, Judge. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Robert G. Schultz, Jr., Medina, for relators in cases Nos. 76-1237, 76-1275, 76-1366 and 77-194.
Gregory W. Happ, Medina, for relators in case No. 77-231.
J. M. Kinney, Medina, for respondent.
Relators seek writs of prohibition to prevent respondent from trying them for the offenses of driving while under the influence of alcohol (R.C. 4511.19), alleging that respondent has no jurisdiction due to the fact that the Uniform Traffic Ticket sanctioned by Traf.R. 21 does not provide that the signature of the issuing officer be verified.
Prohibition is not the proper remedy where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Dickison, v. Court of Common Pleas (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 277 N.E.2d 210. Respondent has jurisdiction of the persons and subject matter. Any complaint with regard to the form of the ticket can be dealt with by motion prior to trial or in the ordinary course of appeal.
Since the relators have an adequate remedy at law, the writs are denied.
Writs denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, ex rel. Smith v. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div.
...law. See, generally, State, ex rel. Dickison, v. Court (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 180, 277 N.E.2d 210; State, ex rel. Dormody, v. McClure (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 335, 336, 364 N.E.2d 278; State, ex rel. Henry, v. Britt, supra. See, also, State, ex rel. Wall, v. Grossman (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d ......
-
State ex rel. Henry v. Britt
...In addition, a writ of prohibition will not issue if there is an adequate remedy at law. See, generally, State ex rel. Dormody v. McClure (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 335, 364 N.E.2d 278; State ex rel. Dickison v. Court of Common Pleas (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 277 N.E.2d 210. In this case, there......
-
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Ferguson
...in any instance where there exists a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Dormody v. McClure (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 335, 364 N.E.2d 278; State ex rel. Dayton v. Kerns (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 295, 361 N.E.2d 247; Transairco v. Common Pleas Court (1976), 45 ......
-
McAuley v. Smith
...Dickison v. Court (1971) 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 180, 57 O.O.2d 411, 411, 277 N.E.2d 210, 210-211; State ex rel. Dormody v. McClure (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 335, 336 4 O.O.3d 476, 477, 364 N.E.2d 278, 279; State ex rel. Henry v. Britt (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 71, 21 O.O.3d 45, 424 N.E.2d 297. See, als......