State ex rel. Tyler v. McMonagle

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Tyler v. McMonagle

494 N.E.2d 1144, 25 Ohio St. 3d 13, 25 Ohio B. 11, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 678

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1986

DocketNo. 86-518

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 494 N.E.2d 1144 (State ex rel. Tyler v. McMonagle) 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. Tyler v. McMonagle, 494 N.E.2d 1144, 25 Ohio St. 3d 13, 25 Ohio B. 11, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 678 (Ohio 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In State, ex rel. Maynard, v. Whitfield (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 49, 50, this court reiterated the well-established rule that “* * * the statutory procedure for review of OEPA actions set forth in R.C. Chapter 3745 is exclusive and that courts of common pleas are without jurisdiction to proceed in actions for declaratory and injunctive relief involving controversies under R.C. Chapter 3745. State, ex rel. Williams, v. Bozarth (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 34 [9 O.O.3d 19], and Warren Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Williams (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 352 [10 O.O.3d 484].”

There has been no contention made by respondents that the EBR lacks jurisdiction to allocate the federal funding at issue. They contend only that the respondent judge has authority to do what is necessary to enforce his own orders. That right, however, must yield to the unambiguous requirement set forth in Maynard, supra, regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the EBR.

The writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

In State, ex rel. Maynard, v. Whitfield (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 49, 50, this court reiterated the well-established rule that “* * * the statutory procedure for review of OEPA actions set forth in R.C. Chapter 3745 is exclusive and that courts of common pleas are without jurisdiction to proceed in actions for declaratory and injunctive relief involving controversies under R.C. Chapter 3745. State, ex rel. Williams, v. Bozarth (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 34 [9 O.O.3d 19], and Warren Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Williams (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 352 [10 O.O.3d 484].”

There has been no contention made by respondents that the EBR lacks jurisdiction to allocate the federal funding at issue. They contend only that the respondent judge has authority to do what is necessary to enforce his own orders. That right, however, must yield to the unambiguous requirement set forth in Maynard, supra, regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the EBR.

The writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 N.E.2d 1144, 25 Ohio St. 3d 13, 25 Ohio B. 11, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-tyler-v-mcmonagle-ohio-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack