State ex rel. Dickison v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, 71-517
| Decision Date | 22 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-517,71-517 |
| Citation | 28 Ohio St.2d 179,277 N.E.2d 210,57 O.O.2d 411 |
| Parties | , 57 O.O.2d 411 The STATE, ex rel. DICKISON et al., v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LAKE COUNTY, Ohio. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Ellis B. Brannon, Cleveland, for relators.
Baker, Byron & Hackenberg and Barry M. Byron, Painesville, for respondent.
The statutory authority for courts of record in this state to hear declaratory judgment actions is R.C. 2721.02.
Whether to proceed in a declaratory relief action is a matter for the determination of the trial court in the first instance. Following such determination appropriate appellate procedures are available to the parties.
Prohibition will not lie where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Bartlett v. Baynes (1969),20 Ohio St.2d 129, 253 N.E.2d 748; State, ex rel. Winnefeld v. Court of Common Pleas (1953), 159 Ohio St. 225, 112 N.E.2d 27.
It should be manifestly clear that our decision to deny the writ in this case is not based on Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co. v. Chames (1959), 170 Ohio St. 209, 163 N.E.2d 367. In that case, the determination of 'permission' did not affect the issues in the personal injury action. In the instant case, the question of 'course and scope of employment' is one of the issues in the personal injury action.
Writ denied.
*
* Justice DUNCAN sat in this case during oral argument, but did not participate in the decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., OWENS-CORNING
...is a matter for the determination of the trial court in the first instance." State ex rel. Dickison v. Lake Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 180, 57 O.O.2d 411, 277 N.E.2d 210, 211. Case law, additionally, encourages the use of declaratory judgment: "[T]he remedy should......
-
State ex rel. B & C Machine Co. v. Indus. Comm.
...to make the threshold determination of whether to allow the action to proceed. See State ex rel. Dickison v. Court of Common Pleas (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 57 O.O.2d 411, 277 N.E.2d 210. The majority chooses to ignore this clear and well-established law, asserting instead that because the......
-
State, ex rel. Smith v. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div.
...be awarded only where there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See, generally, State, ex rel. Dickison, v. Court (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 180, 277 N.E.2d 210; State, ex rel. Dormody, v. McClure (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 335, 336, 364 N.E.2d 278; State, ex rel. Henry, v. ......
-
State ex rel. Henry v. Britt
...at law. See, generally, State ex rel. Dormody v. McClure (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 335, 364 N.E.2d 278; State ex rel. Dickison v. Court of Common Pleas (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 277 N.E.2d 210. In this case, there appear to be no potential errors which could not be corrected on appeal, thus ob......