State ex rel. Bd. of County Com'rs of Butler County v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County

• Citation: 54 Ohio St.2d 354,376 N.E.2d 1343,8 O.O.3d 359
• Decision Date: 14 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-1354,77-1354
• Parties: , 8 O.O.3d 359 The STATE ex rel. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BUTLER COUNTY, Appellant, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTLER COUNTY et al., Appellees.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Page 354

54 Ohio St.2d 354

376 N.E.2d 1343, 8 O.O.3d 359

The STATE ex rel. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BUTLER COUNTY, Appellant, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTLER COUNTY et al., Appellees.

No. 77-1354.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 14, 1978.

The instant cause arises out of an order of the Board of County Commissioners of Butler County denying the budget request of the clerk of courts for the fiscal year 1977. In March 1977, the clerk of courts filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County seeking review of the board's order. The board (relator herein) filed a motion to dismiss. That motion was denied on April 14, 1977, and, on April 19, relator filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeals for Butler County. The Court of Common Pleas of Butler County and Judge Fred B. Cramer (respondents herein) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court of Appeals granted respondents' motion to dismiss.

The cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right.

Michael T. Gmoser, Hamilton, for appellant.

Baden, Jones, Scheper & Crehan Co., L. P. A., and Matthew J. Crehan, Hamilton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

A court may not issue a writ of prohibition unless it determines that all the following conditions apply:

" * * * (1) The court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy; (3) the exercise of such power must amount to an unauthorized usurpation of judicial power." State ex rel. Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. Winter (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 6, 8, 260 N.E.2d 827, 828; State ex rel. Rouault v. Common Pleas Court (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 65, 66, 362 N.E.2d 643.

The issue before the court in the instant cause is whether relator has an adequate remedy at law pursuant to R.C. 307.56 and 2506.01, so that prohibition will not lie.

R.C. 307.56 provides, in pertinent part:

"A person aggrieved by the decision of the board of county commissioners may appeal to the court of common pleas, as provided by and under the authority of Chapter 2506 of the Revised Code. * * * "

R.C. 2506.01 provides:

"Every final order, adjudication, or decision of any officer, tribunal, authority, board, bureau, commission, department or other division of any political subdivision of the state may be reviewed by the common pleas court of the county in which the principal office of the political subdivision is located, as provided in sections 2505.01 to 2505.45, inclusive, of the Revised Code, and as such procedure is modified by sections 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, of the Revised Code.

"The appeal provided in sections 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, of the Revised Code is in addition to any other remedy of appeal provided by law.

"A 'final order, adjudication, or decision' does not include any order from which an appeal is granted by rule, ordinance, or statute to a higher administrative authority and a right to a hearing on such appeal is provided; any order which does not constitute a determination of the rights, duties, privileges, benefits, or legal relationships of a specified person; nor any order issued preliminary to or as a result of a criminal proceeding."

Relator argues that "(t)he action of a board of county commissioners in adopting a budget" is not within the purview of R.C. 2506.01 and that, therefore, relator does not have an adequate remedy alternative to prohibition.

It is established law in Ohio that "(a) court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction on the 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...