State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Justine Michael, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
The State ex rel. Bradford, Appellant, v. Trumbull County
Court et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court
(1992), Ohio St.3d .]
Prohibition to prevent exercise of county court's jurisdiction
not available, when -- Adequate remedy at law available.
(No. 91-1000 -- Submitted June 17, 1992 -- Decided
September 2, 1992.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No.
90-T-4427.
Relator-appellant, Brian Bradford, alleges that on January
28, 1990, he attended a Super Bowl party at Yankee Lake
Ballroom in Yankee Lake Village located in Trumbull County,
Ohio. The party organizer's policy did not permit guests to
reenter after leaving the party. While attempting to complain
about this policy, relator apparently had an altercation with a
Brookfield Township police officer who provided security for
the party. Relator was arrested and charged in the Trumbull
County Court, Eastern District, with resisting arrest, assault,
and disorderly conduct.
Relator brought this complaint in prohibition in the Court
of Appeals for Trumbull County on July 17, 1990, contending
that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the underlying
case. On March 18, 1991, the court of appeals denied the writ,
holding that relator had an adequate remedy at law.
The cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of
right.

John P. Lutseck, for appellant.
Dennis Watkins, Prosecuting Attorney, and James Misocky,
for appellees.

Per Curiam. For a writ of prohibition to issue, the
respondent must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial
power, the exercise of that power must be unauthorized by law,
and refusal of the writ must result in injury for which no
other adequate legal remedy exists. State ex rel. Columbus S.
Power Co. v. Sheward (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 78, 79, 585 N.E.2d
380, 381.

I
Appellant argues in his first proposition of law that the
county court does not have jurisdiction to hear his case. This
argument is based on the power of the courts of common pleas to
establish the jurisdiction of county courts.
R.C. 1907.01 provides:
"There is hereby created in each county of the state, in
which the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal court or
municipal courts is not coextensive with the boundaries of the
county, a court to be known as the county court. The county
court shall have jurisdiction throughout a county court
district that shall consist of all territory within the county
not subject to the territorial jurisdiction of any municipal
court. County courts are courts of record for all purposes of
law."
By entry of May 25, 1982, the Court of Common Pleas of
Trumbull County listed all of the townships and municipalities
that were to be included within the jurisdiction of the
Trumbull County Court. Included within this determination of
jurisdiction was the village of Yankee Lake.
Pursuant to R.C. 1907.11, two county judges are required
where the population of a county court district exceeds thirty
thousand but does not exceed sixty thousand. The population of
the Trumbull County Court District was found to be 37,040 by
the court of common pleas, which divided the responsibilities
of the two judges mandated by the statute into two districts -
- a central district and an eastern district. The court of
common pleas assigned all the townships to either the central
or the eastern district but, probably due to an oversight, did
not specifically assign Yankee Lake to either of these
districts.
Appellant contends that because Yankee Lake was not
assigned to a district in the court's journal entry, the
eastern district where his criminal case is pending lacks
jurisdiction of his case.
Appellees argue that Brookfield Township was assigned to
the eastern district and that this court should take judicial
notice that Yankee Lake is located within Brookfield Township.
This being so, Yankee Lake would have been included within the
eastern district.
Appellant has made no showing that either district lacks
jurisdiction. It can equally be argued that Yankee Lake has
been included in the general jurisdiction of the county court
and either district could properly assume jurisdiction. We do
not have to address this issue at this time since the eastern
district has already assumed jurisdiction and appellant has an
adequate remedy at law by way of appeal:
"Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a
court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an
action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction. A
party challenging the court's jurisdiction has an adequate
remedy at law via appeal from the court's holding that it has
jurisdiction. Middleburg Heights v. Brown (1986), 24 Ohio
St.3d 66, 68, 24 OBR 215, 216-217, 493 N.E.2d 547, 549; State
ex rel. Gilla v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 86, 73 O.O.2d
328, 338 N.E.2d 522." (Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Pearson
v. Moore (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 37, 38, 548 N.E.2d 945, 946.

II
Appellant in his second proposition of law asserts that
the law enforcement officer who arrested him did not have
jurisdiction because there is no provision in law for a
contract between a municipality and a township for police
protection. Appellant cites R.C. 737.04, which allows for such
contracts between municipalities, but does not include those
contracts between townships and municipalities. We need not
reach the merits of this proposition since the question in this
prohibition action is whether the county court has
jurisdiction, not whether the contract between the municipal
corporation and the township with regard to police protection
is valid.
III
Appellant in his third proposition of law argues:
(1) His arrest was invalid because the arresting police
officer was engaged in illegal activities, i.e., protecting
illegal gambling and violation of liquor laws;
(2) the police officer did not have authority to make the
arrest; and
(3) the arrest was made in violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
All the above involve questions of law and, as such, are
properly appealable. This being so, appellant has an adequate
remedy at law.
Accordingly, appellant has an adequate remedy at law for
all issues raised by his propositions of law. The judgment of
the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and
Resnick, JJ., concur.
Douglas, J., concurs in judgment only.