Cheap Escape v. Haddox and Tessman Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Cheap Escape v. Haddox and Tessman - Case Study Example This case was brought before the Franklin County Municipal Court, State of Ohio. The municipal court awarded a default judgment, in favor of Cheap Escape. The municipal court denied Tessman’s motion to vacate. Tessman appealed. Judgment was reversed by the appeals court and remanded for dismissal (p. 1, 2). Issues Presented or Questions of Law Does the municipal court have jurisdiction over subject matter when relevant events occurred outside the county (Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C., 2008)? Arguments or Objectives of the Parties Appellant argues that â€Å"the municipal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over any statutorily prescribed action, regardless of where underlying events occurred. Conversely, Appellee argues that the phrase (original jurisdiction within its territory), limits subject-matter jurisdiction to those actions which occurred within the territorial limits of the court† (p. 3). Holding/Rule of Law â€Å"R.C. 1901.18(A) limits municipal court subject-matter jurisdiction to actions or proceedings that have a territorial connection to the court† (p.6). â€Å"The parties admittedly did not have territorial connections to the Franklin County Municipal Court†, (so) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction† (p. 6). Judgment of the municipal court is void for lack of jurisdiction and the holding of the court of appeals is affirmed (p. 6).