Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hunt v. Thompson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 11, 1992No. 90-1817PublishedCited by 25 opinions

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

  1. Department of Administrative Services v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State ex rel. Rice v. McGrathOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Fogle v. SteinerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Logsdon v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State Ex Rel. Fifth Third Mortgage Co. v. RussoOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Hill v. BriggsOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Page v. RileyOhio Supreme Court · 1999

20 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