Case ID: ohio-st-2d_58/html/0458-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State, ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO et al., v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.
    (No. 79-37
    Decided June 27, 1979.)
    
      
      Messrs. Claymcm & Jaffy, Mr. Stewart R. Jaffy, and Mr. Malcolm L. Goodman, for relators.
    
      Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Michael J. Hickey, for respondents.
    
      Goolidge, Wall, Matusoff, Womsley $'Lombard Co., L. P. A., Mr. Joseph A. O’Friel, Mr. John G. Lombard and Mr. Roger J. Makley, for intervening respondent Chrysler Corp.
   Per Curiam.

Eelators have failed to allege facts givr ing rise to a clear legal duty entitling them to the writ of mandamus. Furthermore, relators do not allege that the commission lacks jurisdiction to act, but only that such action would be erroneous. If a tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the question before it, a writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent it from exercising that authority. State, ex rel. McCaffrey, v. Cleveland (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 346, 347.

Accordingly, the writs of mandamus and prohibition are denied.- .

Writs denied.

CeLEBREZZE, . C. ■ J., HERBERT, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.