State ex rel. Gonzales v. Patton

329 N.E.2d 104, 42 Ohio St. 2d 386, 71 Ohio Op. 2d 371, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 506
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 4, 1975
DocketNo. 74-929
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 329 N.E.2d 104 (State ex rel. Gonzales v. Patton) 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. Gonzales v. Patton, 329 N.E.2d 104, 42 Ohio St. 2d 386, 71 Ohio Op. 2d 371, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 506 (Ohio 1975).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first sentence of R. C. 4123.519 provides, in part: ‘ ‘ The claimant or the employer may appeal a decision of the Industrial Commission in any injury case, other than a decision as to the extent of disability, to the Court of Common Pleas * * This statutory provision clearly vests Courts of Common Pleas with general jurisdiction over decisions of the Industrial Commission in injury cases. Ford’s action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County is undisputably an attempt to have that court review a decision of the Industrial Commission in an injury case. Appellee judge made an initial determination, in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss, that the Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to review the decision.

The impropriety of reviewing that determination in a prohibition action is stated in the third paragraph of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Miller, v. Court of Common Pleas (1949), 151 Ohio St. 397, 86 N. E. 2d 464:

“A court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction on issue raised, and a party challenging its jurisdiction has a remedy at law in appeal from an adverse holding of the court that it has such jurisdiction, and may not maintain a proceeding in prohibition to prevent the prosecution of such action.” See, also, State, ex rel. Dickison, v. Court of Common Pleas (1971), 28 Ohio St. 2d 179, 277 N. E. 2d 210; State, ex rel. Indus. Comm., v. Holt (1938), 134 Ohio St. 25, 15 N. E. 2d 543.

Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

0 ’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and; P. Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State ex rel. Ruessman v. Flanagan
605 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
State ex rel. Ormet Corp. v. Burkhart
495 N.E.2d 422 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)
State ex rel. Smith v. Court of Common Pleas
436 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1982)
State ex rel. Henry v. Britt
424 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1981)
State ex rel. McSalters v. Mikus
403 N.E.2d 1215 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980)
State, Ex Rel. Phillips v. Polcar
367 N.E.2d 61 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1976)
State ex rel. Gilla v. Fellerhoff
338 N.E.2d 522 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 N.E.2d 104, 42 Ohio St. 2d 386, 71 Ohio Op. 2d 371, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-gonzales-v-patton-ohio-1975.