Krooss v. Murry
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Krooss v. Murry, 123 Ohio St.3d 85, 2009-Ohio-4051.] KROOSS, APPELLANT, v. MURRY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Cite as Krooss v. Murry, 123 Ohio St.3d 85, 2009-Ohio-4051.] Prohibition Petition denied Trial court does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction Underlying case has territorial connection to municipal court. (No. 2009-0449 Submitted August 11, 2009 Decided August 18, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Greene County, No. 2008-CA-100, 2009-Ohio-214. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Paul Krooss, for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Xenia Municipal Court Judge Michael Murry, from proceeding in a case involving Krooss. Contrary to appellant s assertions, Judge Murry does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the underlying case, because the case has a territorial connection to the municipal court. See Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C., 120 Ohio St.3d 493, 2008-Ohio-6323, 900 N.E.2d 601, syllabus. Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, Krooss has an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his jurisdictional claim. State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. __________________ Herbert Creech, for appellant. Ronald C. Lewis, Xenia Law Director, for appellee. ______________________ O CONNOR,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
