State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court
| Decision Date | 02 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1000,91-1000 |
| Citation | 64 Ohio St.3d 502,597 N.E.2d 116 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. BRADFORD, Appellant, v. TRUMBULL COUNTY COURT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Relator-appellant, Brian Bradford, alleges that on January 28, 1990, he attended a Super Bowl party at Yankee Lake Ballroom in Yankee Lake Village located in Trumbull County, Ohio. The party organizer's policy did not permit guests to reenter after leaving the party. While attempting to complain about this policy, relator apparently had an altercation with a Brookfield Township police officer who provided security for the party. Relator was arrested and charged in the Trumbull County Court, Eastern District, with resisting arrest, assault, and disorderly conduct.
Relator brought this complaint in prohibition in the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County on July 17, 1990, contending that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the underlying case. On March 18, 1991, the court of appeals denied the writ, holding that relator had an adequate remedy at law.
The cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
John P. Lutseck, for appellant.
Dennis Watkins, Pros. Atty., and James Misocky, for appellees.
For a writ of prohibition to issue, the respondent must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, the exercise of that power must be unauthorized by law, and refusal of the writ must result in injury for which no other adequate legal remedy exists. State ex rel. Columbus S. Power Co. v. Sheward (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 78, 79, 585 N.E.2d 380, 381.
Appellant argues in his first proposition of law that the county court does not have jurisdiction to hear his case. This argument is based on the power of the courts of common pleas to establish the jurisdiction of county courts.
R.C. 1907.01 provides:
By entry of May 25, 1982, the Court of Common Pleas of Trumbull County listed all of the townships and municipalities that were to be included within the jurisdiction of the Trumbull County Court. Included within this determination of jurisdiction was the village of Yankee Lake.
Pursuant to R.C. 1907.11, two county judges are required where the population of a county court district exceeds thirty thousand but does not exceed sixty thousand. The population of the Trumbull County Court District was found to be 37,040 by the court of common pleas, which divided the responsibilities of the two judges mandated by the statute into two districts--a central district and an eastern district. The court of common pleas assigned all the townships to either the central or the eastern district but, probably due to an oversight, did not specifically assign Yankee Lake to either of these districts.
Appellant contends that because Yankee Lake was not assigned to a district in the court's journal entry, the eastern district where his criminal case is pending lacks jurisdiction of his case.
Appellees argue that Brookfield Township was assigned to the eastern district and that this court should take judicial notice that Yankee Lake is located within Brookfield Township. This being so, Yankee Lake would have been included within the eastern district.
Appellant has made no showing that either district lacks jurisdiction. It can equally be argued that Yankee Lake has been included in the general jurisdiction of the county court and either district could properly assume jurisdiction. We do not have to address this issue at this time since the eastern district has already assumed jurisdiction and appellant has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pierce
......v. . PIERCE, Appellant. . No. 90-1898. . Supreme Court of Ohio. . Submitted June 2, 1992. . Decided Sept. 2, ...542, 565 A.2d 670; People v. Shi Fu Huang (Cty.Ct.1989), 145 Misc.2d 513, 546 N.Y.S.2d 920; State v. ... Ohio St.2d 22, 34 O.O.2d 13, 213 N.E.2d 179; State ex rel. Babcock v. Perkins (1956), 165 Ohio St. 185, 59 O.O. 258, ......
-
Infrasys, Inc. v. Bros. Pavement Prods., Corp.
...may appeal the judgment. Id. , citing Goldstein , 70 Ohio St.3d at 235, 638 N.E.2d 541, citing State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court , 64 Ohio St.3d 502, 597 N.E.2d 116 (1992) and State ex rel. Pearson v. Moore , 48 Ohio St.3d 37, 548 N.E.2d 945 (1990). A party challenging the oppos......
-
State v. Judge Robert C. Mcclelland
...will not issue and the issue of jurisdiction must be addressed through an appeal. State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court, 64 Ohio St.3d 502, 597 N.E.2d 116 (1992); State ex rel. Pearson v. Moore, 48 Ohio St.3d 37, 548 N.E.2d 945 (1990). {¶9} In Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio S......
-
State Of Ohio v. Donnelly
...v. Portage County Court of Common Pleas (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 489, 678 N.E.2d 1365, and State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court, 64 Ohio St.3d 502, 1992-Ohio-116, 597 N.E.2d 116. Moreover, the court has discretion in issuing the writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott......