Opinion ID: 2273673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This Court's Discretion

Text: Finally, it is worth noting that even if this Court believed that Petitioners had made a good showing in support of a finding of standing and had demonstrated a lack of jurisdiction at the circuit court, the decision whether to grant a writ of prohibition lies in the sound discretion of the reviewing court. Edwards v. Hickman, 237 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Ky.2007). Though this Court (and its predecessor) has been loath to deny a jurisdictional writ based solely on its discretionary power where a failure of subject matter jurisdiction has been established, see, e.g., Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Ky.2004); Chamblee v. Rose, 249 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Ky.1952), it has continually asserted that whether to grant the writ is still discretionary. Even if the prerequisites for either class of writ are met, the reviewing court has the discretion to deny the writ, where prudence dictates doing so. Edwards, 237 S.W.3d at 189. Even if the concerns outlined above did not require that this Court deny the requested writ, they would still persuade this Court to exercise its discretion to deny this writ. These considerations illuminate how this case is not ripe for resolution by this Court, especially not via the extraordinary remedy of a writ of prohibition. See Newell Enterprises, Inc. v. Bowling, 158 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Ky.2005) (The writ of prohibition is such an `extraordinary remedy' that Kentucky courts `have always been cautious and conservative both in entertaining petitions for and in granting such relief.').