Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute where relators seek a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus to prevent the court of appeals from proceeding with an appeal filed by Berman, who was declared a vexatious litigator and restricted under R.C. 2323.52. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas determined Berman engaged in vexatious conduct and barred him from initiating legal proceedings without court approval. Despite this, Berman filed an appeal without obtaining the necessary leave, violating the statutory requirement. The court of appeals erroneously allowed the appeal to proceed, asserting that Berman's appeal of his vexatious litigator status was not an abuse of process. The Supreme Court found this to be incorrect, emphasizing that R.C. 2323.52, as substantive law, overrides procedural rules and mandates dismissal in such circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the writs sought by the relators, ruling that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction, and ordered dismissal of Berman's appeal. The decision was concurred by the majority of justices, with a dissent advocating for dismissal of the cause.
Legal Issues Addressed
Effect of Failing to Obtain Leavesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Berman's failure to seek permission before filing the appeal mandated dismissal of his case as per statutory requirements.
Reasoning: When alerted to this noncompliance, the court of appeals was obligated to dismiss the appeal as mandated by R.C. 2323.52(I).
Issuance of Writs of Prohibition and Mandamussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court issued writs to stop further proceedings on the appeal and to compel its dismissal, as the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The court granted a peremptory writ of prohibition to halt any further proceedings on the appeal and a writ of mandamus to compel dismissal.
Jurisdiction Under R.C. 2323.52subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear Berman's appeal because he did not obtain the required leave as a vexatious litigator.
Reasoning: The court finds that the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction under R.C. 2323.52(F)(2) and (I), granting the extraordinary relief requested.
Substantive Law vs. Procedural Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The statutory requirements of R.C. 2323.52, as substantive law, override conflicting procedural rules related to filing appeals.
Reasoning: R.C. 2323.52 is classified as substantive law, impacting the rights of individuals designated as vexatious litigators regarding their ability to initiate or continue lawsuits.
Vexatious Litigator Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Berman, identified as a vexatious litigator, filed an appeal without the necessary permission, violating statutory requirements.
Reasoning: A person classified as a vexatious litigator must obtain leave from the appropriate court before initiating or continuing legal proceedings, as outlined in R.C. 2323.52.