In re Guardianship of Jadwisiak
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHarper, J.
Appellant premises this appeal on the need for a trial court to possess both subject matter and personal jurisdiction in order to resolve disputes. Noting that a court acquires personal jurisdiction either by service of process or by a voluntary appearance, appellant asserts that the probate court had not acquired personal jurisdiction over him at the time of the March 2, 1988 order, as he had not been served with process nor had he made an appearance. Appellant once again cites State ex rel. Ballard v. O’Donnell, supra, as controlling. Moreover, appellant asserts that the probate court was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati District Council 51Ohio Supreme Court · 1973
- Clendenning v. McCallOhio Supreme Court · 1945
- In re Guardianship of WonderlyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Szuhay v. ZahoranskyOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
- State v. MorrowOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Advantage Bank v. Waldo Pub., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
- Rheinhold v. ReichekOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- In Re HardsOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
- In Re KinrossOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Matter of Estate of KatchatagAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.