In re Contested Election on November 7, 1995 Concerning Election of Township Trustee

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Contested Election on November 7, 1995 Concerning Election of Township Trustee

76 Ohio St. 3d 234

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 7, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2639

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 76 Ohio St. 3d 234 (In re Contested Election on November 7, 1995 Concerning Election of Township Trustee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Contested Election on November 7, 1995 Concerning Election of Township Trustee, 76 Ohio St. 3d 234 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Kayser asserts that the common pleas court erred when it ruled that write-in candidates were permitted under R.C. 3513.041 because R.C. 3513.253 expressly prohibits write-in candidates and provides that the filing of a nominating petition is the exclusive method for the election of township trustees.

As both Hutman and the board note, Kayser does not contend that the common pleas court erred in finding his election contest barred by collateral estoppel. See Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus (“A valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the [236]*236subject matter of the previous action.”). Instead, Kayser challenges the common pleas court’s holding in Kayser’s injunction action. However, the common pleas court’s judgment in the injunction matter is not before this court.

It is well settled that we will not indulge in advisory opinions. See N. Canton v. Hutchinson (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 112, 114, 661 N.E.2d 1000, 1002, and cases cited therein. In that Kayser attacks a judgment which is not the subject of this appeal, we need not address Kayser’s contentions.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the common pleas court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Kayser asserts that the common pleas court erred when it ruled that write-in candidates were permitted under R.C. 3513.041 because R.C. 3513.253 expressly prohibits write-in candidates and provides that the filing of a nominating petition is the exclusive method for the election of township trustees.

As both Hutman and the board note, Kayser does not contend that the common pleas court erred in finding his election contest barred by collateral estoppel. See Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus (“A valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the [236]*236subject matter of the previous action.”). Instead, Kayser challenges the common pleas court’s holding in Kayser’s injunction action. However, the common pleas court’s judgment in the injunction matter is not before this court.

It is well settled that we will not indulge in advisory opinions. See N. Canton v. Hutchinson (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 112, 114, 661 N.E.2d 1000, 1002, and cases cited therein. In that Kayser attacks a judgment which is not the subject of this appeal, we need not address Kayser’s contentions.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the common pleas court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Ohio St. 3d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-contested-election-on-november-7-1995-concerning-election-of-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack