State ex rel. Stark v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas

511 N.E.2d 115, 31 Ohio St. 3d 324, 31 Ohio B. 599, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 338
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 29, 1987
DocketNo. 87-412
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 511 N.E.2d 115 (State ex rel. Stark v. Summit County 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. Stark v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas, 511 N.E.2d 115, 31 Ohio St. 3d 324, 31 Ohio B. 599, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 338 (Ohio 1987).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case, relator seeks a peremptory writ of prohibition to prevent the Summit County trial court from taking any further action in case No. CV 84-2-0562.

The writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ to be used with great caution in the furtherance of justice and only where there is no other regular, ordinary, and adequate remedy. State, ex rel. Nolan, v. ClenDening (1915), 93 Ohio St. 264, 112 N.E. 1029; State, ex rel. Garrison, v. Brough (1916), 94 Ohio St. 115, 113 N.E. 683; State, ex rel. Emery-Thompson Mach. & Supply Co., v. Jones (1917), 96 Ohio St. 506, 118 N.E. 115. As is the case with an alternative writ, a peremptory writ of prohibition should not be issued on the pleadings in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. See Section 3, Rule VIII of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice.

The record in this case indicates that the Bakers have engaged in a continuing and vexatious abuse of the judicial process by instituting duplicative proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. We find that those actions constitute such extraordinary circumstances that the issuance of a peremptory writ of prohibition is justified.

[326]*326The Bakers’ motion to dismiss is hereby denied. In view of the continuing abuse of process evidenced by the proceedings below, and in the furtherance of judicial economy, we find that good cause has been shown for relator’s motion for summary judgment, and that motion is granted.

A peremptory writ of prohibition is hereby allowed.

Writ allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz
2024 Ohio 4686 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State ex rel. Gideon v. Page
2024 Ohio 1219 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Snyder v. Capizzi
2024 Ohio 305 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State ex rel. Hare v. Russell
2022 Ohio 1932 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 8046 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2017)
State ex rel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Henson
2002 Ohio 2851 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
State ex rel. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Henson
96 Ohio St. 3d 33 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
State Ex Rel. Allstate Insurance v. Gaul
722 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999)
State ex rel. Lipinski v. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
74 Ohio St. 3d 19 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)
State Ex Rel. Dixon v. Clark County Court of Common Pleas
660 N.E.2d 486 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
State v. Steffen
1994 Ohio 111 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
511 N.E.2d 115, 31 Ohio St. 3d 324, 31 Ohio B. 599, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-stark-v-summit-county-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1987.