State ex rel. Pearson v. Moore
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction. A party challenging the court’s jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law via appeal from the court’s holding that it has jurisdiction. Middleburg Heights v. Brown (1986), 24 Ohio St. 3d 66, 68, 24 OBR 215, 216-217, 493 N.E. 2d 547, 549; State, ex rel. Gilla, v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St. 2d 86, 73 O.O. 2d 328, 338 N.E. 2d 522. We therefore agree with the court of appeals that prohibition will not lie.
Pearson argues…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State ex rel. Tilford v. CrushOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State ex rel. Gilla v. FellerhoffOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- City of Columbus v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- City of Middleburg Heights v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- State ex rel. Add Venture, Inc. v. GillieOhio Supreme Court · 1980
3Cited by24 opinions
- Goldstein v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Sellers v. GerkenOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- National City Commercial Capital Corp. v. AAAA At Your Service, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
- State ex rel. Ruessman v. FlanaganOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull County CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1992
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.