Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Pearson v. Moore

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 10, 1990No. 89-359PublishedCited by 24 opinions

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

  1. State ex rel. Tilford v. CrushOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Gilla v. FellerhoffOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. City of Columbus v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. City of Middleburg Heights v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State ex rel. Add Venture, Inc. v. GillieOhio Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Goldstein v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Sellers v. GerkenOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. National City Commercial Capital Corp. v. AAAA At Your Service, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State ex rel. Ruessman v. FlanaganOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull County CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1992

19 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