State ex rel. Stark v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas, 87-412
| Decision Date | 29 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-412,87-412 |
| Citation | 31 OBR 599,511 N.E.2d 115,31 Ohio St.3d 324 |
| Parties | , 31 O.B.R. 599 The STATE, ex rel. STARK, v. SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
J. Norman Stark, Cleveland, pro se.
George W. Spittal, Akron, for respondents Lewis W. Baker and Elizabeth V. Baker.
Lynn C. Slaby, Pros. Atty., and Evan J. Palik, Akron, for respondent Court of Common Pleas of Summit County.
In this case, relator seeks a peremptory writ of prohibition to prevent the Summit County trial court from taking any further action in case No. CV 84-2-0562.
The writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ to be used with great caution in the furtherance of justice and only where there is no other regular, ordinary, and adequate remedy. State, ex rel. Nolan v. Clendening (1915), 93 Ohio St. 264, 112 N.E. 1029; State, ex rel. Garrison v. Brough (1916), 94 Ohio St. 115, 113 N.E. 683; State, ex rel. Emery-Thompson Mach. & Supply Co., v. Jones (1917), 96 Ohio St. 506, 118 N.E. 115. As is the case with an alternative writ, a peremptory writ of prohibition should not be issued on the pleadings in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. See Section 3, Rule VIII of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice.
The record in this case indicates that the Bakers have engaged in a continuing and vexatious abuse of the judicial process by instituting duplicative proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. We find that those actions constitute such extraordinary circumstances that the issuance of a peremptory writ of prohibition is justified.
The Bakers' motion to dismiss is hereby denied. In view of the continuing abuse of process evidenced by the proceedings below, and in the furtherance of judicial economy, we find that good cause has been shown for relator's motion for summary judgment, and that motion is granted.
A peremptory writ of prohibition is hereby allowed.
Writ allowed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steffen
...to relitigate claims and issues that had already been decided adversely to them. State ex rel. Stark v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 324, 31 OBR 599, 511 N.E.2d 115. We emphasized that prohibition was a writ to be used with great caution and only in the presence o......
-
State ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler
...Savs. Bank v. Wyandot Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 35 Ohio St.3d 192, 519 N.E.2d 647 (1988) ; State ex rel. Stark v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 31 Ohio St.3d 324, 511 N.E.2d 115 (1987). In our judgment, the conduct of Chesley and WSBC warrants this extraordinary relief.{¶ 22} Goeri......
-
State, ex rel. Hare v. Russell
... ... RUSSELL, Respondent. No. C-210344 Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton June ... Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and ... Krista M. Gieske, ... Daily Reporter v ... Court of Common Pleas of Franklin Cty., 56 Ohio St.3d ... 145, ... State ex rel. Stark v. Summit Cty. Court of Common ... Pleas, 31 ... ...
-
Slone v. Ohio Bd. of Embalmers & Funeral Directors, 68873
... ... 669 N.E.2d 288 ... SLONE, Appellant, ... STATE BOARD OF EMBALMERS & FUNERAL DIRECTORS, Appellee ... No. 68873 ... Court of Appeals of Ohio, ... Eighth District, Cuyahoga County ... Decided Dec. 4, 1995 ... 09 and that he perfected his appeal to the common pleas court in a timely fashion. We find merit ... See, also, State ex rel. Citizens for Van Meter v. Ohio Elections Comm ... ...