Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Houk v. Court of Common Pleas of Ross County

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1977No. 77-365PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Although the parties have both phrased this case' in terms of jurisdiction, it is actually a matter of concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction: ' Both the Franklin County court and the Ross County court have jurisdiction of the subject matter, and service upon the parties appears to be regular; therefore, comity between coequal tribunals is the issue — not jurisdiction/ But, this issue is not necessarily properly resolved by issuance of a writ of prohibition.

This court-is reluctant to grant extraordinary writs. In addition/ a court must be allowed to determine its own jurisdiction.

Paragraph…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Largent v. FisherOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State ex rel. Smith v. AvelloneOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Roberts v. County of MahoningDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006
  4. Roberts v. County of MahoningDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006
  5. State v. Dalton, Unpublished Decision (5-26-1999)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API