State ex rel. B. F. Goodrich Chemical Div. v. Griffin

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. B. F. Goodrich Chemical Div. v. Griffin

391 N.E.2d 1018, 59 Ohio St. 2d 59, 13 Ohio Op. 3d 55, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 477

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 18, 1979

DocketNo. 78-1280

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 391 N.E.2d 1018 (State ex rel. B. F. Goodrich Chemical Div. v. Griffin) 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

State ex rel. B. F. Goodrich Chemical Div. v. Griffin, 391 N.E.2d 1018, 59 Ohio St. 2d 59, 13 Ohio Op. 3d 55, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 477 (Ohio 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

Per . Curiam.

The ease most nearly apposite to the instant cause, and relied upon by appellant, is State, ex rel. Allied Chemical Corp., v. Earhart (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 153, in which this court reiterated the three criteria necessary for issuance of a writ of prohibition as stated in State, ex rel. Northern Ohio. Tel. Co., v. Winter (1970), 23 Ohio St. 2d 6, 8. Allied Chemical involved, among other matters, a wrongful death action against a complying employer, in which the.trial court had overruled .Allied Chemical’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which re-relief could be granted. This court found that the lower court was- in error in entertaining the suit and, also stated, at. page 156:

.«« * * Northern Ohio Telephone Co. requires that. Refusal of the writ will result in injury for which there is no adequate- remedy.’ Although we have generally held that [61]*61prohibition, may not be used as a substitute for appeal, a recognized exception to this rule is found in State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 326, 329, 285 N. E. 2d 22, as follows:

“ Tf an inferior court is without jurisdiction whatsoever to act, the availability or adequacy of a remedy of appeal to prevent the resulting injustice is immaterial to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by a superior court to prevent usurpation of jurisdiction by an inferior court.’ ” This cause' however, is distinguishable from A llied Chemical, supra, in that the respondent judge herein has stated that he is permitting discovery in order that he might determine if he has jurisdiction. This court will not assume that the trial court will make an incorrect decision concerning this threshold question.

■ Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint in prohibition is affirmed.

..Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze,. C.. J., Herbert, W. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ;, concur. P. Brown and Holmes, JJ., dissent.

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

Per . Curiam.

The ease most nearly apposite to the instant cause, and relied upon by appellant, is State, ex rel. Allied Chemical Corp., v. Earhart (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 153, in which this court reiterated the three criteria necessary for issuance of a writ of prohibition as stated in State, ex rel. Northern Ohio. Tel. Co., v. Winter (1970), 23 Ohio St. 2d 6, 8. Allied Chemical involved, among other matters, a wrongful death action against a complying employer, in which the.trial court had overruled .Allied Chemical’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which re-relief could be granted. This court found that the lower court was- in error in entertaining the suit and, also stated, at. page 156:

.«« * * Northern Ohio Telephone Co. requires that. Refusal of the writ will result in injury for which there is no adequate- remedy.’ Although we have generally held that [61]*61prohibition, may not be used as a substitute for appeal, a recognized exception to this rule is found in State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 326, 329, 285 N. E. 2d 22, as follows:

“ Tf an inferior court is without jurisdiction whatsoever to act, the availability or adequacy of a remedy of appeal to prevent the resulting injustice is immaterial to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by a superior court to prevent usurpation of jurisdiction by an inferior court.’ ” This cause' however, is distinguishable from A llied Chemical, supra, in that the respondent judge herein has stated that he is permitting discovery in order that he might determine if he has jurisdiction. This court will not assume that the trial court will make an incorrect decision concerning this threshold question.

■ Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint in prohibition is affirmed.

..Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze,. C.. J., Herbert, W. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ;, concur. P. Brown and Holmes, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 N.E.2d 1018, 59 Ohio St. 2d 59, 13 Ohio Op. 3d 55, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-b-f-goodrich-chemical-div-v-griffin-ohio-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack