State ex rel. Hunter v. Summit County Human Resource Com'n

• Decision Date: 22 April 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-1002,97-1002
• Citation: 692 N.E.2d 185,81 Ohio St.3d 450
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. HUNTER, Judge, Appellant, v. SUMMIT COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCE COMMISSION, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 450

81 Ohio St.3d 450

692 N.E.2d 185

The STATE ex rel. HUNTER, Judge, Appellant, v. SUMMIT COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCE COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 97-1002.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 3, 1998.

Decided April 22, 1998.

Maureen O' Connor, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, William E. Schultz and Christopher C. Esker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., David J. Millstone, Cleveland, and Loren L. Braverman, Columbus, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Judge Hunter asserts in her sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred by dismissing her prohibition action because the commission patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the discharged employees' appeal. In order to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt that relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in relator's favor. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581, 669 N.E.2d 835, 837.

Judge Hunter seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the commission from proceeding with the juvenile court employees' appeal. Judge Hunter would be entitled to the requested writ of prohibition if she established (1) that the commission is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) that the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) that the denial of the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. Whitehall ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 120, 121, 656 N.E.2d 684, 686. Judge Hunter alleged and the commission conceded that it is about to exercise quasi-judicial power in hearing the juvenile court employees' appeal.

Regarding the remaining requirements for a writ of prohibition, in general, absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a tribunal having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal. See State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 287, 289, 667 N.E.2d 929, 931. If, however, the tribunal patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the matter, prohibition will lie to prevent the unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Litty v. Leskovyansky (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 97, 98, 671 N.E.2d 236, 238.

The court of appeals determined that Judge Hunter could not establish the second and third requirements for a writ of prohibition because the commission had not yet determined whether it had jurisdiction over the juvenile court employees' appeal. The court of appeals relied on State ex rel. Cuyahoga Cty Bd. of Commrs. v. State Personnel Bd. of Review (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 73, 74, 537 N.E.2d 212, 214, where we held:

"Here, the county alleged that the SPBR was about to exercise unlawful quasi-judicial authority and that this would cause the county irreparable harm. However, because the SPBR may ultimately find that it has no jurisdiction, the county cannot show that it will be injured if a writ of prohibition is denied. Indeed, if the SPBR finds jurisdiction to be absent and dismisses the pertinent cases, the county would not want even to consider an appeal. In this sense, the county's complaint was 'premature,' and we find that the court of appeals properly dismissed it on this basis.

"Our conclusion makes it unnecessary to decide whether the county will have no adequate remedy at law if the SPBR decides the question of jurisdiction adversely to it. The county asks us to assume how the SPBR will resolve the issue. However, in State, ex rel. B.F. Goodrich, v. Griffin (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 59, 13 O.O.3d 55, 391 N.E.2d 1018, we refused to make a similar assumption prior to a common pleas court's ruling on facts relating to its jurisdiction. We find Griffin sufficient authority for us to refuse to make the assumption needed to reach the county's claim here." See, also, State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Oryshkewych (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 462, 463, 605 N.E.2d 30, 31; State ex rel. Independence Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 134, 136, 580 N.E.2d 430, 432.

Nevertheless, none of the foregoing cases involved a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction. If there is a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, Judge Hunter's complaint is not premature. In other words, when a tribunal patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to consider a matter, a writ of prohibition will issue to prevent assumption of jurisdiction regardless of whether the tribunal has ruled on the question of its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 536, 541, 660 N.E.2d 458, 462; State ex rel. Rice v. McGrath (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 70, 71, 577 N.E.2d 1100, 1101; State ex rel. Albright v. Delaware Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 40, 41, 572 N.E.2d 1387, 1388; 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.

Therefore, the dispositive issue is whether the commission patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the discharged employees' appeal. The commission concedes on appeal that if the discharged employees are unclassified or at will, it lacks jurisdiction over their appeal:

"Section 6.04, Article VI, of the Charter and...