 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Haussler v. Walker6/17/2002
rocedural error become so "patent and unambiguous" as to require prohibition? More importantly, the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and other affirmative defenses would become blurred. An objection to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Other affirmative defenses, however, must be timely raised and pleaded or waived. To characterize a procedural error as a jurisdictional defect would allow a party to disrupt litigation. Such use would allow unfair surprise and promote delay.
Based upon the foregoing, we find that Haussler has no right to an order from this court prohibiting the court of common pleas from proceeding. The court of common pleas has not exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction. In the case before us, where the error in jurisdiction is not patent and unambiguous, Haussler has a remedy by way of the appellate process for an alleged error in the exercise of jurisdiction. Haussler's motion for summary judgment and petition for a writ of prohibition are denied. Judge Walker's motion to dismiss the writ is granted.
YOUNG and VALEN, JJ. concur.
|