Krooss v. Murray

Ohio Supreme Court

Krooss v. Murray

2009 Ohio 4051, 914 N.E.2d 366, 123 Ohio St. 3d 85

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 18, 2009

Docket2009-0449

StatusPublished

This text of 2009 Ohio 4051 (Krooss v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krooss v. Murray, 2009 Ohio 4051, 914 N.E.2d 366, 123 Ohio St. 3d 85 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Paul Krooss, for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Xenia Municipal Court Judge Michael Murray, from proceeding in a case involving Krooss. Contrary to appellant’s assertions, Judge Murray does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the underlying case, because the case has a territorial connection to the municipal court. See Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C., 120 Ohio St.3d 493, 2008-Ohio-6323, 900 N.E.2d 601, syllabus. Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, Krooss has an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his jurisdictional claim. State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Paul Krooss, for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Xenia Municipal Court Judge Michael Murray, from proceeding in a case involving Krooss. Contrary to appellant’s assertions, Judge Murray does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the underlying case, because the case has a territorial connection to the municipal court. See Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C., 120 Ohio St.3d 493, 2008-Ohio-6323, 900 N.E.2d 601, syllabus. Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, Krooss has an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his jurisdictional claim. State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 4051, 914 N.E.2d 366, 123 Ohio St. 3d 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krooss-v-murray-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack