State ex rel. Hunt v. Thompson
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The Hunts argue that Thompson is without jurisdiction whatsoever to act and that the appellate court should have issued the writ. Pigman and Kegerreis contend that the Hunts have an adequate remedy at law by filing a second notice of dismissal.
According to Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Office of Collective Bargaining v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48, 562 N.E.2d 125, syllabus:
“When a court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to consider a matter, a writ of prohibition will issue to prevent assumption of jurisdiction * * *. [Citations omitted.]”
In State, ex rel. Rice,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Department of Administrative Services v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Rice v. McGrathOhio Supreme Court · 1991
3Cited by25 opinions
- State ex rel. Fogle v. SteinerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Logsdon v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State Ex Rel. Fifth Third Mortgage Co. v. RussoOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- Hill v. BriggsOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Page v. RileyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.