This case requires us to answer two questions: (1) does a common pleas court administrative judge in the general division of that court have authority to assign a judge of the domestic relations division of that court to hear an action for injunctive relief involving a civil zoning dispute and (2) if not, does the inter-divisional transfer warrant issuance of a writ of prohibition? For the reasons set forth below, we find that an administrative judge does not have authority to make such a rеassignment and that extraordinary relief is appropriate.
The test for prohibition is well-established. For the writ to issue, this court must find that the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, that the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and that relator has no other adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Judson, v. Spahr (1987),
In support of the premise that Judge Martin was without authority to assign Judge Hayes of the domestic relations division to hear the zoning matter underlying the case at bar, relators rely on Schucker v. Metcalf (1986),
“* * * [O]nly the Chief Justice, Aсting Chief Justice of this court, or the presiding judge of a court of common pleas can assign a judge from one division of the same court to another division.” (Footnote omitted.) Id at 37, 22 OBR at 31,488 N.E. 2d at 214 .
From this, relators argue that Judge Martin, in his capacity as administrative judge, could not transfer case No. 87-CV-0596 to Judge Hayes.
Judge Metcalf thereafter announced his decision to grant summary judgment for defendants on several of the claims and for plaintiffs on other claims. An action in prohibition was filed in the court of appeals in an effort to prevеnt Judge Metcalf from proceeding. In response, Judge Gillie, the Administrative Judge of the General Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, retrieved thе action from the probate division and returned it to the general division by ordering the action “ ‘reassigned to Judge Metcalf, as a Judge of the Court of Cоmmon Pleas ***.’” Id. at 33, 22 OBR at 28,
On appeal, this court allowed the writ after examining, inter alia, C.P. Sup. R. 3(B) and C.P. Sup. R. 2. We held that C.P. Sup. R. 2 is the “sole authority” for transfers of judges from one division to another, other than by assignment of the Chief Justice of this court. Id. at 36-37, 22 OBR at 30-31,
Respondents contend that Schucker is distinguishable from this case beсause it involved an interdivisional transfer to a probate court judge whose jurisdiction is “of a limited nature,” whereas R.C. 2301.03(P) provides that the judge of the Domеstic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Portage County “shall * * * exercise the same powers and jurisdiction * * * as the other judges of the court of common pleas of Portage county.” Respondents claim that since this language confers general common pleas court jurisdictiоn on judges elected and designated judges of the Portage County domestic relations division, Sehucker is inapplicable and thus would not preclude
We do not find respondents’ reliance on R.C. 2301.03(P) responsive to whether this interdivisional transfer was properly made. Whether R.C. 2301.03(P) conferred such jurisdiction on Judge Hayes does not alter the conclusion in Schucker that requires а valid interdivisional transfer before the power conferred may be exercised.
Like Schucker v. Metcalf, this case involves an interdivisional transfer made by an administrative judgе instead of a presiding judge. Schucker held that this is an unauthorized means of reassigning a case. We therefore hold that Judge Hayes had no authority to issue a prеliminary injunction and that relators have established the exercise of unauthorized judicial power.
Relators have also satisfied the first prerequisitе to issuance of the writ of prohibition. As was the case in Schucker v. Metcalf, Judge Hayes will undoubtedly proceed with his consideration of the underlying zoning dispute if the writ is refused. Furthermore, this court has determined the issuance of injunctive relief to be an exercise of judicial power sufficient to establish the first element of the prohibition standard. See, e.g., State, ex rel. Northern Ohio Tel. Co., v. Winter, supra; State, ex rel. Wolff, v. Donnelly (1986),
The third prong of the prohibition standard has also been met. In Schucker v. Metcalf, supra, this court determined that the relators had no right to challenge the аssignment of a judge from the probate division to the general division on appeal. The same is true with respect to the assignment of a judge of the domestic relations division. Proper assignment, like jurisdiction over the subject matter, is required for the valid exercise of judicial power. Thus, Judge Hayes cаnnot proceed in case No. 87-CV-0596, a case to which he has not been lawfully assigned. Accordingly, prohibition is appropriate in this case.
The only question remaining is the extent to which the writ should issue. The Schucker decision is not instructive on this point because, in that case, Judge Metcalf had not entered judgmеnt in connection with the suit before him. Rather, he had only “announced his decision to grant summary judgment.” Id. at 33, 22 OBR at 27-28,
Ordinarily, prohibition is used to prevent the unauthorized exercise of judicial power. However, in State, ex rel. Northern Ohio Tel. Co., v. Winter, supra, we allowed the writ not only to prevent further action by a court that was about to exercise unlawful judicial power, but to invalidate an order already made. The authority for applying this remedy in retrospect was described in State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler (1972),
“* * * [A] court which has jurisdiction to issue the writ of prohibition as well as the writs of procedendo and mandamus has plenary power, not only to prevent excesses of lower tribunals, but to сorrect the results thereof and to restore the parties to the same position they occupied before the excesses occurred.”
Thus, this court may vacate a lower court’s order where a claim in prohibition has been established.
Given respondents’ respective judiciаl positions within the organization of the Court of Common Pleas of Portage County and the reasoning in Schucker v. Metcalf, we conclude that this matter presents no genuine issue
Writ allowed.
Notes
Relators also argue that Judge Martin had no authority to transfer case No. 87-CV-0596 to Judge Hayes once Judge Martin received notice that an affidavit of prejudice had been filed. Relators rely on Tumbleson v. Noble (1959),
Relators do not provide any authоrity that suggests that substantive rights are affected by properly transferring a case to another judge at a preliminary stage of a proceeding. Indеed, the cases cited recognize that a judge whose impartiality has been challenged may nevertheless perform administrative or ministerial acts. See Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation, supra, at 37, 1 O.O. 3d at 174,