Case ID: ohio-st-3d_25/html/0013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State, ex rel. Tyler, Dir., et al., v. McMonagle, Judge.
    [Cite as State, ex rel. Tyler, v. McMonagle (1986), 25 Ohio St. 3d 13.]
    (No. 86-518
    Decided July 9, 1986.)
    
      
      Anthony J. Celébrezze, Jr., attorney general, Margaret A. Malone and Terrence M. Fay, for relators Tyler and Tin.
    
      Richard A. Castellini, city solicitor, and W. Peter Heile, for relator city of Cincinnati.
    
      Ranald J. O’Brien, city attorney, and John Klein, for relator city of Columbus.
    
      Sheldon M. Rosen, law director, and Mary G. Trimboli, for relator city of Toledo.
    
      Michael Radabaugh, law director, for relator'city of Newark.
    
      
      Michael J. McNulty, law director, for relator city of Barberton.
    
      Jeffery L. Amick, law director, for relator city of Greenville.
    
      James E. Barber, law director, for relator village of Wauseon.
    
      Terry S. Schilling, city solicitor, and Scott Serazin, law director, for relator city of Elyria.
    
      John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Patrick J. Murphy, for respondent.
    
      Squires, Sanders & Dempsey, Van Carson and George M. von Mehren, for intervening respondent.
   Per Curiam.

In State, ex rel. Maynard, v. Whitfield (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 49, 50, this court reiterated the well-established rule that “* * * the statutory procedure for review of OEPA actions set forth in R.C. Chapter 3745 is exclusive and that courts of common pleas are without jurisdiction to proceed in actions for declaratory and injunctive relief involving controversies under R.C. Chapter 3745. State, ex rel. Williams, v. Bozarth (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 34 [9 O.O.3d 19], and Warren Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Williams (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 352 [10 O.O.3d 484].”

There has been no contention made by respondents that the EBR lacks jurisdiction to allocate the federal funding at issue. They contend only that the respondent judge has authority to do what is necessary to enforce his own orders. That right, however, must yield to the unambiguous requirement set forth in Maynard, supra, regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the EBR.

The writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.