Jacobs v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 2076

Syllabus

Writ of prohibition, subject-matter jurisdiction, jurisdictional-priority rule, R.C. 2305.01, R.C. 2701.03, courts of concurrent jurisdiction, Supreme Court of Ohio, judicial bias, breach-of-contract claim, negligence claim, basic statutory jurisdiction, adequate remedy at law, and appeal. Relator commenced prohibition actions in the Supreme Court of Ohio and this court to correct an exercise of judicial bias and other errors. Because the court of appeals and the Supreme Court are courts of concurrent jurisdiction for the extraordinary writs and because the action was instituted first in the Supreme Court, the priority-of-jurisdiction principle divested this court of jurisdiction over the prohibition action. Assuming arguendo that the priority-of-jurisdiction principle does not apply, prohibition will not lie in this case. The trial court had basic statutory jurisdiction to hear the breach-of-contract and negligence claims, precluding prohibition. The relator has and is pursuing her adequate remedy at law, an appeal. Prohibition is designed to act as a preventive measure, not to review an accomplished act. Prohibition does not lie to correct instances of judicial bias.