Goldstein v. Christiansen

Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided 1994-09-14

Cited by 268 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Per Curiam. Appellants assert in their first, third, fourth, and fifth propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying their request for a writ of prohibition where the common pleas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. In order to obtain a writ of prohibition, relators must establish (1) that the court or officer against whom the writ is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial pow…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.