Legal Opinion

STATE Ex HALCHAK v. DOYLE, Judge

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 19, 1932No. 2088PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. In Re RiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Ex parte WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. STATE Ex KENNELLY v. MILLER EtOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
  2. Holley v. BradleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
  3. In Re LorokOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
  4. State, Ex Rel. Everson v. Municipal Ct, BarbertonOhio Court of Appeals · 1954
  5. State ex rel. Bridge v. KrehbielOhio Court of Appeals · 1937

1 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