State ex rel. Flower v. Rocker

Decision Date14 December 1977
Docket NumberNo. 77-343,77-343
CitationState ex rel. Flower v. Rocker, 370 N.E.2d 479, 52 Ohio St.2d 160, 6 O.O.3d 375 (Ohio 1977)
Parties, 6 O.O.3d 375 The STATE ex rel. FLOWER, Appellant, v. ROCKER, Judge, et al., Appellees.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

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.

PER CURIAM.

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 writ would...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
21 cases
  • State v. Stansell
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 17 d4 Junho d4 2021
    ...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 ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 5 d4 Outubro d4 2017
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 20 d3 Maio d3 1998
    ...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......
  • James Neal v. Anthony Maniglia
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 6 d4 Abril d4 2000
    ... ... concurrently in this opinion. The assignments of error state: ... 1. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY NOT GIVING ... jurisdiction." ... State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Cty ... Sheriff's ... Dept ... 122, ... 656 N.E.2d 684, 687; State ex rel. Flower v. Rocker ... (1977), ... 52 Ohio ... St.2d ... ...
  • Get Started for Free