Parkinson v. Stratton

Ohio Supreme Court

Parkinson v. Stratton

616 N.E.2d 211, 67 Ohio St. 3d 98, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 1582

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 11, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2365

StatusPublished

This text of 616 N.E.2d 211 (Parkinson v. Stratton) 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

Parkinson v. Stratton, 616 N.E.2d 211, 67 Ohio St. 3d 98, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 1582 (Ohio 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment in case No. 91AP-1370. In case No. 92AP-445, the motion to certify the record is overruled and the claimed appeal as of right is dismissed as not involving a substantial constitutional question.

Appellant argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the action in forcible entry and detainer and to quiet title because the federal district court, which has concurrent jurisdiction, acquired that jurisdiction first. Even if we concede arguable concurrent jurisdiction in the federal district court for the limited purpose of an action to quiet title — see Pollack v. United States (C.A.6, 1987), 819 F.2d 144 — by the time the court of appeals ruled on the complaint, both the federal district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the federal district court had no jurisdiction to hear the particular action. Accordingly, the court of appeals did not err by denying the writ of prohibition.

Judgment affirmed in case No. 91AP-1370.

Motion to certify the record overruled in case No. 92AP-M5.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment in case No. 91AP-1370. In case No. 92AP-445, the motion to certify the record is overruled and the claimed appeal as of right is dismissed as not involving a substantial constitutional question.

Appellant argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the action in forcible entry and detainer and to quiet title because the federal district court, which has concurrent jurisdiction, acquired that jurisdiction first. Even if we concede arguable concurrent jurisdiction in the federal district court for the limited purpose of an action to quiet title — see Pollack v. United States (C.A.6, 1987), 819 F.2d 144 — by the time the court of appeals ruled on the complaint, both the federal district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the federal district court had no jurisdiction to hear the particular action. Accordingly, the court of appeals did not err by denying the writ of prohibition.

Judgment affirmed in case No. 91AP-1370.

Motion to certify the record overruled in case No. 92AP-M5.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 N.E.2d 211, 67 Ohio St. 3d 98, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 1582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkinson-v-stratton-ohio-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack