State, ex rel. Hunt, v. Thompson, 90-1817
| Decision Date | 11 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1817,90-1817 |
| Citation | 63 Ohio St.3d 182,586 N.E.2d 107 |
| Parties | The STATE, ex rel. HUNT et al., Appellants, v. THOMPSON, Judge; Pigman et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Leonard O. Hunt and Shirley C. Hunt, appellants, sued, inter alia, Jack R. Pigman and Robert J. Kegerreis, intervening respondents and appellees, in Franklin County Common Pleas Court. The case was assigned to Judge Thompson, appellee. Thompson granted the Hunts's ex parte motion for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and intervenors appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. The court of appeals ruled that the dismissal was ineffective, because intervenors had not been heard on the motion, and reversed the judgment.
While that appeal was pending, the Hunts, conceding that the ex parte dismissal entry was error, filed a notice of dismissal with the trial court under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a). When the court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court, the Hunts sought a ruling from Thompson on the effect of the notice of dismissal. Thompson decided that he was without jurisdiction when this notice of dismissal was filed, that the notice, consequently, was a nullity, and that he would proceed in the case.
The Hunts filed a complaint in prohibition with the Court of Appeals for Franklin County to prevent Thompson from proceeding. The court of appeals concluded that the notice of dismissal was effective to dismiss the case but that the Hunts had an adequate remedy at law by filing another notice of dismissal. Accordingly, the court denied the writ.
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Robert C. Paxton II & Associates and Robert C. Paxton II, Columbus, for appellants.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Alan L. Briggs and Michael W. Pettit, Columbus, for appellee Pigman.
Faruki, Gilliam & Ireland and Armistead W. Gilliam, Jr., Dayton, for appellee Kegerreis.
The Hunts argue that Thompson is without jurisdiction whatsoever to act and that the appellate court should have issued the writ. Pigman and Kegerreis contend that the Hunts have an adequate remedy at law by filing a second notice of dismissal.
According to Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Office of Collective Bargaining v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48, 562 N.E.2d 125, syllabus:
In State, ex rel. Rice, v. McGrath (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 70, 577 N.E.2d 1100, we issued a writ to prevent a judge from taking further action in a case that he had earlier unconditionally dismissed. We held that the judge patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the case.
Civ.R. 41(A)(1) states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans Koukios, D/b/a Scientific Information Systems v. Marketing Dynamics, Inc.
... ... State ex rel. Hunt v. Thompson (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d ... ...
-
State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner
...jurisdiction to proceed and a writ of prohibition will issue to prevent the exercise of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Hunt v. Thompson (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 182, 183, 586 N.E.2d 107, 108; see, also, State ex rel. Rice v. McGrath (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 70, 577 N.E.2d 1100 (trial court lacks jur......
-
State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
...court of jurisdiction to go forward in the matter. Sturm, 63 Ohio St.3d at 676, 590 N.E.2d at 1217-1218; State ex rel. Hunt v. Thompson (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 182, 586 N.E.2d 107; Goldstein, 50 Ohio App.3d at 5-7, 552 N.E.2d at 229-232. Respondents argued earlier in their motion for reconsid......
-
Lewis v. Celina Fin. Corp.
...inherent power. While a voluntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(1) generally divests a court of jurisdiction, State ex rel. Hunt v. Thompson (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 182, 586 N.E.2d 107; Zimmie v. Zimmie (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 94, 95, 11 OBR 396, 397, 464 N.E.2d 142, 144, a hearing on sanctions ......