Case ID: ohio-st-2d_36/html/0141-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[The State, ex rel.] Hampton, v. Manos, Chief Justice.
    (No. 73-746
    Decided December 12, 1973.)
    
      Messrs. Sindell, Sindell, Bourne, Stern & Spero and Mr. Reuben M. Payne, for relator.
    
      Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Edward M- Walsh, for respondent,
   Per Curiam.

Relator’s sole contention is that he is unable to appear in the action pending in the Court of Appeals and defend in person and with counsel. He does not allege that he has made any effort to intervene in the Court of Appeals or been denied any participation by that court in the case.

Prohibition lies only where there is no other regular, ordinary and adequate remedy available to- relator. State, ex rel. Nolan, v. ClenDening (1915), 93 Ohio St. 264.

Relator’s complaint does not state a claim for which relief by prohibition may be granted. Therefore, respondent’s motion to dismiss is sustained and the writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.