Legal Opinion · Dissent

Martin v. Davidson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 5, 1990No. 89-1076Published

1DissentHolmes, J.

I dissent from this court’s determination that a probate judge, properly sitting in probate jurisdiction, may not determine paternity as an ancillary claim to heir-ship brought pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2123.

The original (but not exclusive) jurisdiction to hear paternity actions lies explicitly in both the domestic relations and juvenile courts pursuant to R.C. 3111.06, which provides, in pertinent part:

“(A) The juvenile court has original jurisdiction of any action authorized under sections 3111.01 to 3111.19 of the Revised Code. An action may be brought under those sections in *241the juvenile…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Corron v. CorronOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Alexander v. AlexanderOhio Probate Court of Franklin County · 1988
  3. Standifer v. ArwoodOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. State, Ex Rel. Mastracci v. RoseOhio Court of Appeals · 1947
  5. Alexander v. AlexanderOhio Court of Appeals · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API