Ohio Supreme Court, 1977

State ex rel. Flower v. Rocker

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 14, 1977 · Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, McCormao, Neill, Sweeney

52 Ohio St. 2d 160; 370 N.E.2d 479; 6 Ohio Op. 3d 375; 1977 Ohio LEXIS 481

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2017)
State v. Stansell (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake County Sheriff's Department (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Lipinski v. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court (Ohio 1995)
City of Whitehall ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (Ohio 1995)
Whitehall ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (Ohio 1995)
State v. Leegrand (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Assn. v. Cleveland (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
State v. Orr (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Vanni v. McMonagle (Ohio 2013)
State ex rel. Vanni v. McMonagle (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Conley, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Walls, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Neal v. Maniglia, Unpublished Decision (4-6-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Fronk v. Chung, Unpublished Decision (4-30-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Souders v. Hyer, Unpublished Decision (9-15-1997) (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
State ex rel. Lipinski v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div. (Ohio 1995)
State Ex Rel. Massaro Corp. v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)
State ex rel. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners v. State Personnel Board of Review (Ohio 1989)
Stevens v. Stevens (Me. 1978)
State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges (Ohio 1978)

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 issue is whether appellant has stated a claim upon which a writ of prohibition could possibly issue.

*162The conditions prerequisite to issuance of a writ of prohibition include: “ * * (1) The court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy; (8) the exercise of such power must amount to an unauthorized usurpation of judicial power.’ ” State, ex rel. Rouault, v. Common Pleas Court (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 65, at page 66.

The Shaker Heights Municipal Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over replevin actions. That jurisdiction includes the power to make rulings concerning possible defenses in relation to replevin actions, including the affirmative defense of res judicata. Hence, the trial court did not usurp its judicial power.

Appellant asserts further that the Shaker Heights Municipal Court has no power to decide the replevin action as, between courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the one whose power is first invoked acquires the right to adjudicate the entire issue to the exclusion of other tribunals. See State, ex rel. Phillips, v. Polcar (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 279. That principle, however, has no apphcation to the instant cause as the first action had been terminated before the second action was commenced.

Prohibition is not available as a substitute for appeal which provides an adequate remedy at law for appellant in this cause.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, McCormao, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

McCormao, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for W. Brown, J.

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