State ex rel. Ross v. Judges of the Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Ross v. Judges of the Court of Common Pleas

159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 13, 1953

DocketNo. 33287

StatusPublished

This text of 159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444 (State ex rel. Ross v. Judges of the Court of Common Pleas) 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. Ross v. Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, 159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444 (Ohio 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question presented is whether, under the facts, the relator is entitled to a writ of prohibition. The Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action therein, and, under authority of Section 11631, General Code, has jurisdiction to vacate and modify its own judgments or orders after term. Relator’s remedy from an adverse judgment is by appeal. A writ of prohibition will be awarded only where there is no other adequate remedy, and, where a court has full and complete jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action pending therein, a writ of prohibition will not be awarded to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. State, ex rel. Winnefeld, v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, ante, 225.

The motion of respondent Kearns for judgment on the pleadings is sustained and a writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taet, Matthias, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur. Stewart, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

The question presented is whether, under the facts, the relator is entitled to a writ of prohibition. The Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action therein, and, under authority of Section 11631, General Code, has jurisdiction to vacate and modify its own judgments or orders after term. Relator’s remedy from an adverse judgment is by appeal. A writ of prohibition will be awarded only where there is no other adequate remedy, and, where a court has full and complete jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action pending therein, a writ of prohibition will not be awarded to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. State, ex rel. Winnefeld, v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, ante, 225.

The motion of respondent Kearns for judgment on the pleadings is sustained and a writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taet, Matthias, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur. Stewart, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-ross-v-judges-of-the-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1953.