State ex rel. Flower v. Rocker, 77-343
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 6 O.O.3d 375,52 Ohio St.2d 160,370 N.E.2d 479 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-343,77-343 |
| Parties | , 6 O.O.3d 375 The STATE ex rel. FLOWER, Appellant, v. ROCKER, Judge, et al., Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1977 |
The appellant, Frank A. Flower, was divorced from Jean E. Flower, on August 29, 1975, in Maryland. The divorce decree incorporated a finding of ownership and right of possession to various items of personal property, part of which were specifically designated to be the sole property of Jean E. Flower. Thereafter, Frank Flower left Maryland and became a resident of Shaker Heights, Ohio. Jean Flower, his former wife, filed a motion to show cause in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Division of Domestic Relations, to enforce compliance with the Maryland divorce decree as to items of personal property granted her in that decree, which property she claimed was now within the court's jurisdiction. She asked that her former husband be adjudged in contempt for failing to comply with the Maryland decree. The Court of Common Pleas found that Frank Flower had substantially complied with the provisions of the property settlement and held that he should not be adjudged in contempt of court. That judgment was not appealed.
Thereafter, Jean Flower commenced an action in replevin in the Shaker Heights Municipal Court seeking to recover the same items of personal property. Frank Flower filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the Municipal Court action in replevin was barred as a result of the doctrine of res judicata, claiming that the same matter had been finally determined between the parties in Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court. That motion was overruled by the trial court, following which a complaint in prohibition was filed by Frank Flower in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, seeking to prohibit Judge Rocker and the Shaker Heights Municipal Court from hearing the replevin action. A motion by respondents to dismiss the complaint in prohibition was granted.
An appeal of right has been taken to this court.
Van Aken, Bond, Withers & Asman, William R. Van Aken and Robert J. Asman, Cleveland, for appellant.
Paul R. Donaldson, director of law, and Chrystine I. Romaniw, special counsel, Shaker Heights, for appellees.
The issue is whether appellant has stated a claim upon which a writ of prohibition could possibly issue.
The conditions prerequisite to issuance of a writ of prohibition include: " ' * * * (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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stansell
...v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court, Probate Div. , 74 Ohio St.3d 19, 20-21, 655 N.E.2d 1303 (1995), and State ex rel. Flower v. Rocker , 52 Ohio St.2d 160, 162, 370 N.E.2d 479 (1977) ; State v. Perry , 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967) (res judicata applies and "may operate" to prev......
-
State v. Stansell
...a void sentence but has no bearing on the trial court's lack of continuing jurisdiction to modify a sentence that is merely voidable. Flower at 162 (writ of prohibition was not warranted because the court jurisdiction to rule on the affirmative defense of res judicata). The dissent's observ......
-
State ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler, 2017-0474
...v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court , Probate Div. , 74 Ohio St.3d 19, 20–21, 655 N.E.2d 1303 (1995) ; State ex rel. Flower v. Rocker , 52 Ohio St.2d 160, 162, 370 N.E.2d 479 (1977). {¶ 18} Second, the creditors argue that permitting Judge Winkler to proceed with liquidating WSBC despite Ju......
-
State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Dept., WILSON-SIMMONS
...ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 120, 122, 656 N.E.2d 684, 687; State ex rel. Flower v. Rocker (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 160, 162, 6 O.O.3d 375, 376, 370 N.E.2d 479, 480. In addition, the sheriff's department's additional claim, that this entire action is moot becau......