Brooks v. Gaul, 729 N.E.2d 752 (Ohio 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Brooks v. Gaul, 729 N.E.2d 752 (Ohio 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2001–2025 · 2 courts · …in the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law by appeal. ✓
55 citation events (54 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State ex rel. Payne v. Rowlands (ohioctapp, 2023-11-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Payne v. Rowlands
Ohio Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203 (2000). {¶9} The first count of the complaint alleges that Judge Reinbold acted without jurisdiction because he presided and entered orders before his certificate of assignment was completed and filed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Sanders v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas
Ohio Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203 (2000). {¶8} The complaint alleges that Judge O’Brien lacks jurisdiction because he was not properly served with his indictment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Yeager v. McCarty
Ohio Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203 (2000). {¶44} Mr. Yeager does not allege that Judges McCarty and Reinbold, serving as a judge and visiting judge on the Summit County Common Pleas Court, do not have jurisdiction over Mr. Yeager’s criminal cases.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Akron Mun. Court
Ohio Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203 (2000). {¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court recently recognized that there are two general areas in which it has found a trial court judge patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction: (1) a statute has explicitly removed jurisdiction from the court, and (2) in rare cases, where personal jurisdiction is lacking.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Ghoubrial v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas
Ohio Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203 (2000). {¶19} The Ghoubrials, apparently recognizing that they must allege Respondents lack jurisdiction, argued that Judge Brogan improperly acted in violation of the Domestic Relations Court’s jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. C.W. v. Boros
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203 (2000). {¶20} The complaint acknowledges that Judge Boros and the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, have jurisdiction over parentage actions.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Sheldon v. Swenski
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203 (2000). {¶8} Mr. Sheldon contends that Judge Swenski patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction because his son has reached the age of majority and graduated from high school.
discussed Cited "see" State Ex Rel. Hards v. Klammer, Unpublished Decision (5-31-2005)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202 , 2000-Ohio-133 . {¶ 30} Because the instant petition is legally insufficient as to the second and third elements of a prohibition claim, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State Ex Rel. Kister-Welty v. Hague (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Brooks v. Gaul (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 202 , 729 N.E.2d 752 . {¶ 15} This court followed a similar analysis in State ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brooks
v.
Gaul, Judge
No. 99-2136.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jun 21, 2000.
729 N.E.2d 752
Charles Brooks, pro se.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Brooks claims that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his prohibition action. For the following reasons, this claim lacks merit.

In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law by appeal. Page v. Riley (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 621, 623, 710 N.E.2d 690, 692. Prohibition will not issue as a substitute for appeal to review mere errors in judgment. Berthelot v. Dezso (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 257, 259, 714 N.E.2d 888, 890.

Therefore, Brooks had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claims on appeal, and he is precluded from raising them by extraordinary writ. See State ex rel. Poore v. Mayer (1964), 176 Ohio St. 78, 79, 26 O.O.2d 375, 376, 197 N.E.2d 557, 558 (prohibition unavailable to challenge erroneous ruling on the admissibility of evidence); Smith v. Mitchell (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 624, 625, 687 N.E.2d 749, 750 (claims of erroneous jury instructions and verdict forms should have been raised on direct appeal rather than in action for habeas corpus).

In addition, as the court of appeals noted, the partial transcript attached to Brooks’s complaint established that the 911 tape was admitted into evidence, so that Judge Gaul did not err in permitting the jury to consider it during its deliberations.

Finally, because it is evident that Brooks seeks release from prison, he should have raised these claims in a habeas corpus action instead of by way of prohibition. See State ex rel. Jackson v. Callahan (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 73, 711 N.E.2d 686.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.