Miller v. Court of Common Pleas, 54 N.E.2d 130 (Ohio 1944). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller v. Court of Common Pleas, 54 N.E.2d 130 (Ohio 1944). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lippman v. Kay, 415 A.2d 738 (R.I. 1980)
Treatment trajectory · 1948 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1948 1987 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
q1 “it is a fundamental rule that, as between courts of concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction, the one whose power is first invoked by the institution of proper proceedings and the service of the required process acquires the right to adjudicate upon the whole issue and to settle the rights of the pa…”3 citing cases3 citing courts quote it
143 Ohio St. at 70 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • Ashtabula Cty. Airport Auth. v. Rich, 2014-Ohio-4288.published
    Accord Miller v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 143 Ohio St. 68, 70 (1944). {¶16} R.C. 1923.01(A) provides: As provided in this chapter, any judge of a county or municipal court or a court of common pleas, within the judge’s prope…
  • Kacyon v. Moore, 2025-Ohio-5030, 273 N.E.3d 1052.published
    See, e.g., Miller v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 143 Ohio St. 68, 70 (1944); State ex. rel.
At page 131 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Lippman v. Kay, 415 A.2d 738 (R.I. 1980).published
    Miller v. Court of Common Pleas, 143 Ohio St. 68, 70 , 54 N.E.2d 130, 131-32 (1944); Autry v. District Court, 459 P.2d 865, 867 (Okl.1969); 1 Bailey, The Law of Jurisdiction 62 (1899).
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Miller
v.
Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County Et Al.
29768.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Mar 22, 1944.
Published opinion
54 N.E.2d 130
1944 Ohio LEXIS 382
My., Eugene T. Lippiricott and Messrs. Phillips $ Falsgraf, for relator. •, ' Mr.: Gerard Pilliod and Mr. ■ W. R. Price, for respondents.
Weygandt, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
By the Court.

“It is a fundamental rule that, as between courts of concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction, the one whose power is first invoked by the institution of, proper proceedings and the service of the required process acquires the right to adjudicate upon the whole issue and to' settle the rights of the parties to the exclusion, of all other tribunals. This rule obtains., in divorce actions. * * * ” 14 Ohio Jurisprur dence,. 410, .Section 30. See, also, 11 Ohio Jurisprudence, 726, Section 81, citing Ex parte Bushnell, 8 Ohio St., 599, and other authorities.

The writ of prohibition will be issued as prayed for in the petition.

Writ allowed.

•' Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Bell, Williams and Turner, JJ., concur.