Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Soukup v. Celebrezze

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1998No. 98-597PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

Soukup asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying him the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition. Soukup claims that where a movant in domestic relations court seeks to modify an order that has become final without alleging a change of circumstances, res judicata bars the court from exercising jurisdiction. For the following reasons, Soukup’s contentions lack merit.

First, Soukup invited any error by the court of appeals in not granting the writ based on the res judicata claim he raises here because he asserted in the court of appeals that res judicata…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Enyart v. O'NeillOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Bitter v. MissigOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State ex rel. O'Beirne v. Geauga County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State ex rel. Lipinski v. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State ex rel. Smith v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1996

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Dzina v. CelebrezzeOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Davis v. WolfeOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State ex rel. Abner v. ElliottOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Miller v. ReedOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State ex rel. Mason v. GriffinOhio Supreme Court · 2000

16 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