State ex rel. Hare v. Russell
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 1932
Syllabus
WRITS – PROHIBITION – JURISDICTION: Petitioner is entitled to a writ of prohibition because respondent trial judge issued a nunc pro tunc entry after she had recused herself from the case, and therefore, at a time when she patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the case. [But see DISSENT: the issuance of a writ of prohibition is unwarranted because respondent did not patently and unambiguously lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, the issuance of the nunc pro tunc entry was not unauthorized by law, and petitioner has an adequate remedy at law.]
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver attempted by counsel
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Crouse
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.