Opinion ID: 1577251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Writ of Prohibition Standard

Text: A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and we have always been cautious and conservative both in entertaining petitions for and in granting such relief. [1] We have divided writ cases into two classes, which are distinguished by whether the inferior court allegedly is (1) acting without jurisdiction (which includes `beyond its jurisdiction'), or (2) acting erroneously within its jurisdiction. [2] Grange is not challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court, so we need not concern ourselves with an extensive discussion of the first class of cases. Instead, Grange's claim falls under the second class. In that type of case, writs of prohibition ordinarily ha[ve] not been granted unless the petitioner established, as conditions precedent, that he (a) had no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise, and (b) would suffer great and irreparable injury (if error has been committed and relief denied). [3] We have consistently (apparently without exception) required the petitioner to pass the first test; i.e., he must show he has no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. [4] The petitioner must then also meet the requirements of the second test, i.e., by showing great and irreparable injury, alternately defined as something of a ruinous nature, [5] before a writ will issue. Ordinarily if this cannot be shown, the petition will be dismissed. [6] We have also held, however, that a showing of great and irreparable harm in this second class of cases is not an absolute prerequisite [7] for the issuance of a writ. The requirement may be put aside in  certain special cases ... [where] a substantial miscarriage of justice will result if the lower court is proceeding erroneously, and correction of the error is necessary and appropriate in the interest of orderly judicial administration. [8] But these certain special cases are exactly that  they are rare exceptions and tend to be limited to situations where the action for which the writ is sought would violate the law, e.g. by breaching a tightly guarded privilege [9] or by contradicting the requirements of a civil rule. [10] In those rare cases, a court may peek behind the curtain, i.e., beyond the petitioner's failure to meet the great and irreparable harm test, at the merits of the petitioner's claim of error by the lower court.