State ex rel. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Rd. v. Court of Common Pleas

228 N.E.2d 313, 11 Ohio St. 2d 193, 40 Ohio Op. 2d 172, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 351, 66 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2767
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 19, 1967·No. No. 40867·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The instant case in prohibition is before this court on a demurrer to the petition. A ruling on the demurrer is dispositive of the action.

In State, ex rel. Mansfield Telephone Co., v. Mayer et al., Judges, 5 Ohio St. 2d 222, 223, it is said:

“The rule is firmly established that the Court of Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction and, as such, possesses the authority initially to determine its own jurisdiction over both the person and the subject matter in an action before it, subject to the right of appeal; and generally prohibition, an extraordinary remedy entertained with caution, will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment.”

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Taft, C. J., ZimmermaN, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, SchNeider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

State ex rel. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Rd. v. Court of Common Pleas, 228 N.E.2d 313, 11 Ohio St. 2d 193, 40 Ohio Op. 2d 172, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 351, 66 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2767 (Ohio 1967).

228 N.E.2d 313 (State ex rel. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Rd. v. Court of Common Pleas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McKenzie v. Vickers-Mckenzie, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2006)
2006 Ohio 7005 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
Hall v. Tucker
829 N.E.2d 1259 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State ex rel. St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Church v. Riley
305 N.E.2d 808 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1973)
State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott
304 N.E.2d 382 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1973)