An overreach. A power grab. A money grab.

Pick your phrase. They're all apt for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's decision to inject his office into a legal process that has played out for two years by asking a federal appeals court to halt a major opioid trial set for October, for claims made by Cuyahoga and Summit counties, at least until the state can try its own cases.

His argument, in part, is that every Ohio county should have access to money from the results of the opioid lawsuits, and that allowing counties to go to trial individually could lead to inconsistent damage awards, and some counties receiving nothing if they lose in court.

The Cuyahoga/Summit trial is seen as a bellwether in the multidistrict litigation overseen by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of Cleveland that consolidates claims from about 2,000 cities, counties and other local governments. They seek to hold opioid manufacturers, distributors and sellers liable for their alleged role in contributing to the abuse of prescription drugs.

Yost's move, which if successful would hamper the complicated task facing Polster, comes late in the process and would continue the state's recent pattern of taking control from local governments. And since drugmakers Endo International and Allergan have tentative agreements to pay a combined $15 million to settle claims filed by Cuyahoga and Summit counties, it at least has the appearance of the state seeking to get in on the money.

This is one of those instances that has united, well, pretty much everyone except Yost. Both Cuyahoga and Summit counties oppose the move, but so does Gov. Mike DeWine. "A great deal of the cost has been borne by the local entities — the cities, the villages, the townships, the counties," DeWine said. "It would not be fair to either pass a law or try in court to preclude their rights."

Reuters, in an analysis, asked whether Yost's mandamus petition might be a "harbinger" of broader action nationwide: "As litigation against opioid defendants moves into the crucial stage in which plaintiffs' megabillion-dollar claims will be tested in trials in state and federal courts, will other state AGs assert that they alone have to power to negotiate settlements and allocate the proceeds? Is the Ohio petition the start of a concerted effort by state AGs to undermine the (multidistrict litigation)?"

One of the lead plaintiffs' lawyers in the litigation told Reuters that he considers Yost an "outlier," and that most attorneys general are working with the plaintiffs in joint settlement talks with defendants.

Yost seems undeterred, telling Reuters, "It's never too late to follow the law," and adding, "We shouldn't be rewarding the first person to the courthouse."

It's not a "reward" for Cuyahoga and Summit counties, and others, to seek settlements related to one of the great health crises of our time. We urge Yost to abandon his course of action, allow the process that has been worked on for so long to play out, and to assist Ohio cities and counties as needed.

We need everyone working together on the opioid crisis. It's too critical an issue for leaders to work at cross purposes. And there are, indeed, some other positive signs.

For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week made a $4.4 million Overdose Data to Action grant to the Cuyahoga County Board of Health. The federal money will help the board of health collect timely data on overdoses, illness and mortality to aid in prevention and response efforts. (The CDC also granted Franklin County nearly $4 million and Hamilton County $5.3 million for their public health departments.) The money is the result of a bipartisan deal that approved $647 million for Comprehensive Addiction & Recovery Act (CARA) programs.

Opioid abuse has had devastating personal, economic and social effects in too many communities. Government at all levels has to focus on prevention, treatment and, yes, restitution, to make things right.