Miller v. Court of Common Pleas
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State, Ex Rel. Phillips v. Polcar (Ohio Ct. App. 1976)
- State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher (Ohio 1989)
- B-Dry System v. Kronenthal, Unpublished Decision (6-30-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- First National Bank v. Miami University (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
- Michaels Building Co. v. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Bank (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Board of Education (Ohio 1988)
- Enz v. Lewis (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
- Pyle v. Pyle, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- Republic Serv. of Ohio v. Bd. of Pike Twp., 2006 Ca 00153 (4-30-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- McDaniel v. McDaniel, Ca2006-12-142 (8-20-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- Lanzer v. Lanzer, Unpublished Decision (3-20-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
- Madewell v. Powell, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
- Swearingen v. Swearingen, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Qualchoice, Inc. v. Nieciecki, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Lippman v. Kay (R.I. 1980)
- State ex rel. Balson v. Harnishfeger (Ohio 1978)
- State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar (Ohio 1977)
- State ex rel. Coss v. Hoddinott (Ohio 1968)
- Kacyon v. Moore (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
- Ashtabula Cty. Airport Auth. v. Rich (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- Walp v. Walp, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Reams v. Reams, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Fenner v. Kinney, Unpublished Decision (3-6-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- H.S. v. L.S., Unpublished Decision (2-14-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Bland v. Bland, Unpublished Decision (2-26-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
“It is a fundamental rule that, as between courts of concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction, the one whose power is first invoked by the institution of, proper proceedings and the service of the required process acquires the right to adjudicate upon the whole issue and to' settle the rights of the parties to the exclusion, of all other tribunals. This rule obtains., in divorce actions. * * * ” 14 Ohio Jurisprur dence,. 410, .Section 30. See, also, 11 Ohio Jurisprudence, 726, Section 81, citing Ex parte Bushnell, 8 Ohio St., 599, and other authorities.
The writ of prohibition will be issued as prayed for in the petition.
Writ allowed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.