Ohio Supreme Court, 1978

State ex rel. Neer v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 18, 1978 · Brown, Celebrezze, Fourth, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Siting, Stephenson, Sweeney

53 Ohio St. 2d 22; 371 N.E.2d 842; 7 Ohio Op. 3d 64; 1978 Ohio LEXIS 483

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Wright v. Ghee (Ohio 1996)
Wright v. Ghee (Ohio 1996)
State Ex Rel. Paluf v. Feneli (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
State ex rel. Duncan v. Am. Transm. Sys., Inc. (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2022)
Williams v. Russo (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
Ormond v. City of Solon, 92272 (3-9-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
Grundstein v. Carroll, Unpublished Decision (5-1-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Cleveland Fire Fighters v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Municipal Constr. Equip. v. Cleveland, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State Ex Rel. McGrath v. Gilligan, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. Zelman, Unpublished Decision (5-22-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Ohio Apa., Unpublished Decision (4-10-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State Ex Rel Tomajko v. Warden, House, Unpublished Decision (4-3-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State Ex Rel. Shimko v. McMonagle, Unpublished Decision (11-09-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State ex rel. Coyne v. Todia (Ohio 1989)
Ryan v. Tracy (Ohio 1983)
State ex rel. Staple v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State v. Cooper (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
Dussell v. Lakewood Police Department, Unpublished Decision (12-5-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)

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

Appellant is actually seeking a declaratory judgment, since the Court of Appeals has no basis for issuing the mandamus order requested unless it makes a determination that R. C. 4123.68 (X) is unconstitutional.

This court stated in State, ex rel. Foreman, v. Bellefontaine Municipal Court (1967), 12 Ohio St. 2d 26, at page 28, as follows:

“Statutes which create a declaratory judgment procedure do not extend the jurisdiction of the subject matter of a court but rather extend the power of the court to grant declaratory relief within its respective jurisdiction. In other words, declaratory judgment statutes provide an additional remedy which may be granted by a court but they do not extend the jurisdiction as to the subject matter upon which a court may act. San Ysidro Irrigation District v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 56 Cal. 2d 708, 365 P. 2d 753, and 26 Corpus Juris Secundum 255, Declaratory Judgments, Section 113.”

Although R. C. 2721.02 gives all “courts of record” the power to render declaratory judgments, the 1968 Modern Courts Amendment gives Court of Appeals original jurisdiction only in quo warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, prohibition, procedendo, and in any eause on *24review as'may be necessary to its complete ■ determination. Section 3(B)(1)(a)-(f), Article IV of the.Ohio Constitution. Permitting a Court of Appeals to give what is basically a declaratory judgment is to expand its constitutionally declared jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. ' ,•

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Stephenson and Locher, JJ., concur. Stephenson, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, siting for Sweeney, J.

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