State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill, 94-594
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 646 N.E.2d 1110,71 Ohio St.3d 655 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-594,94-594 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. ENYART et al., Appellants, v. O'NEILL, Judge, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1995 |
Page 655
v.
O'NEILL, Judge, Appellee.
Decided April 5, 1995.
[646 N.E.2d 1111] Appellants, William and Marilyn Enyart, were plaintiffs in an action in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court against William Enyart's employer, Columbus Metropolitan Area Community Action Organization ("CMACAO"). William Enyart claimed that CMACAO had wrongfully discharged him in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The case was referred to arbitration, and in August 1992, an arbitration panel issued a decision in favor of appellant William Enyart in the amount of $23,522.06.
CMACAO filed a notice of appeal from the arbitration decision in the common pleas court, but failed to include a certificate of service as required by Civ.R. 5 and Loc.R. 19.01 of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. On February 16, 1993, appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Deborah P. O'Neill, entered judgment dismissing CMACAO's appeal on the basis of its defective notice of appeal. On March 5, 1993, CMACAO filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the judgment dismissing the appeal.
On April 27, 1993, Judge O'Neill issued an oral decision granting CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B) motion and vacating her prior judgment dismissing the appeal. By nunc pro tunc entries filed September 17 and 24, 1993, Judge O'Neill's decision granting CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B) motion was journalized. The basis of the ruling was appellants' counsel's statement that she had been aware prior to the scheduled trial date in common pleas [646 N.E.2d 1112] court that an appeal from the arbitration decision had been filed.
On October 14, 1993, appellants filed a notice of appeal from Judge O'Neill's decision granting CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B) motion. On the same date, appellants filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County seeking a writ of prohibition to preclude Judge O'Neill from proceeding further on the appeal from the arbitration decision. On October 20, 1993, Judge O'Neill proceeded to the merits of CMACAO's appeal and issued a decision granting summary judgment in favor of CMACAO. On January 27, 1994, the Court of Appeals for Franklin County denied appellants' complaint for a writ of prohibition.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Page 656
Brenda B. Alleman, Dublin, for appellants.
Michael Miller, Franklin County Pros. Atty. and Elizabeth A. Scott, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In order to obtain a writ of prohibition, appellants had the burden of proving that Judge O'Neill was about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority, that exercise of this power was unauthorized by law, and that they had no other adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 178, 631 N.E.2d 119, 121. At the time appellants filed their prohibition action in the court of appeals, Judge O'Neill was about to exercise judicial authority to consider the merits of CMACAO's appeal of the arbitration decision. However, the court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Girard v. Youngstown Belt Ry. Co., 2011-1850
...general subject-matter jurisdiction has the ability to determine the bounds of its own jurisdiction. State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill, 71 Ohio St.3d 655, 646 N.E.2d 1110 (1995). In determining the scope of its jurisdiction under a federal statute, a state court of general subject-matter juri......
-
State ex rel. Cordray v. Marshall, 2009-0025.
...motions for relief from judgment. See, e.g., State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 123 Ohio St.3d 236 655, 656, 646 N.E.2d 1110 ("In that [the common pleas court judge] possessed jurisdiction to rule on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, the fact that she may have exercised that juris......
-
Ohio High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Ruehlman, 2018-1200
...to grant the relief sought but nevertheless has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case. See State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill , 71 Ohio St.3d 655, 656, 646 N.E.2d 1110 (1995) ("the fact that [a judge] may have exercised that jurisdiction erroneously does not give rise to extraordinary r......
-
State ex rel. Sponaugle v. Hein, 16 CA 00007
...that "[p]rohibition does not lie to prevent a merely erroneous decision by the court." State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill(1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 655, 656, 646 N.E.2d 1110.(Emphases in original.) State of Ohio ex rel. Hawes–Saunders Broadcast Properties, Inc. v. Hall, Montgomery Appellate Case No......