Legal Opinion

Grundstein v. Carroll, Unpublished Decision (5-1-2006)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 1, 2006No. 86604UnpublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORIGINAL ACTION JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

{¶ 1} On July 26, 2005, the relator, Robert Grundstein, commenced this writ action for mandamus and prohibition against the respondent, Judge Patrick Carroll. Grundstein seeks prohibition because, he argues, the trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction over him when his probation expired in the underlying case, City of Lakewood v. Robert Grundstein, Lakewood Municipal Court Case No. 02 B 435. Thus, this court should prevent Judge Carroll from enforcing any current penalties and from imposing any further penalties. For the following reasons, this…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rogers v. City of WhitehallOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State ex rel. Rootstown Local School District Board of Education v. Portage County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull County CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State ex rel. Neer v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. The Limited Stores, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Grundstein v. CarrollOhio Supreme Court · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API