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- State v. Dalton, Unpublished Decision (5-26-1999)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1999