Ohio Supreme Court, 1966

State ex rel. Mansfield Telephone Co. v. Mayer

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided March 16, 1966 · Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taft, Zimmerman

5 Ohio St. 2d 222; 215 N.E.2d 375; 34 Ohio Op. 2d 428; 1966 Ohio LEXIS 417

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Department of Administrative Services v. State Employment Relations Board (Ohio 1990)
Hall v. Tucker (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State ex rel. Osborn v. Jackson (Ohio 1976)
State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon (Ohio 2023)
State ex rel. Steffen v. Myers (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Albright v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1991)
Parker v. Board of Review (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
State, Ex Rel. Slaby v. Summit County Council (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
State ex rel. Adler v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1980)
DuBose v. Court of Common Pleas of Trumbull County (Ohio 1980)
State ex rel. Zakany v. Avellone (Ohio 1979)
State ex rel. Heimann v. George (Ohio 1976)
State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott (Ohio 1973)
State ex rel. Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. Winter (Ohio 1970)
State ex rel. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Rd. v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1967)

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

Per Curiam.

The rule is firmly established that the Court of Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction and, as such, possesses the authority initially to determine its own jurisdiction over both the person and the subject matter in an action before it, subject to the right of appeal; and generally prohibition, an extraordinary remedy entertained with caution, will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. State, ex rel. Knights Templar & Masonic Mutual Aid Assn., v. Common Pleas Court of Meigs County, 124 Ohio St. 493, 499, 179 N. E. 415, 417; State, ex rel. Miller, v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, 151 Ohio St. 397, 86 N. E. 2d 464; and State, ex rel. Bier, v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, 175 Ohio St. 355, 194 N. E. 2d 849.

*224Respondents point ont that in the injunction actions referred to relator herein has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas by motion, demurrer or answer, and that such court has been given no opportunity to pass on its own jurisdiction over the subject matter or persons involved.

In a situation like this we need go no further. The demurrer to the petition should be and is sustained in case No. 39575, and Multi-Channel’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be and is sustained in case No. 39811.

Judgments accordingly.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.