STATE Ex HALCHAK v. DOYLE, Judge
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtWashburn, J.
We are unable to say that the Common Pleas Court 'does not have jurisdiction of the subject-matter involved in said application. We know that the Common Pleas Court does have jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the modification and vacation of its judgments after the term at which they are rendered, and for aught that appears, such jurisdiction has been properly invoked; and it is settled that, if the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter involved in the controversy and, such jurisdiction has been properly invoked, a writ of prohibition should not issue to prohibit it from exercising…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In Re RiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Ex parte WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842
3Cited by6 opinions
- STATE Ex KENNELLY v. MILLER EtOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
- Holley v. BradleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
- In Re LorokOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
- State, Ex Rel. Everson v. Municipal Ct, BarbertonOhio Court of Appeals · 1954
- State ex rel. Bridge v. KrehbielOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.