State ex rel. Berry v. Tackett

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Berry v. Tackett

396 N.E.2d 743, 60 Ohio St. 2d 12, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 162, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 489

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 7, 1979

DocketNo. 79-570

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 396 N.E.2d 743 (State ex rel. Berry v. Tackett) 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

State ex rel. Berry v. Tackett, 396 N.E.2d 743, 60 Ohio St. 2d 12, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 162, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 489 (Ohio 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator is requesting this court to issue a writ of quo warranto to prevent the members of the Board of County Commissioners, Clark County, from exceeding their alleged lawful authority. In paragraph two of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Hogan, v. Hunt (1911), 84 Ohio St. 143, this court stated that “the legality of the exercise of a mere function alleged to be erroneously exercised by one who***is a public officer, can not be inquired into by a proceeding in quo warranto.” The extraordinary remedy of quo warranto is properly employed to test the actual right to an office or franchise. It can afford no relief for official misconduct, and can not be employed to test the mere legality of official action by public officers.

[13]*13Therefore, this action is dismissed, sua sponte.

Complaint dismissed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

Relator is requesting this court to issue a writ of quo warranto to prevent the members of the Board of County Commissioners, Clark County, from exceeding their alleged lawful authority. In paragraph two of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Hogan, v. Hunt (1911), 84 Ohio St. 143, this court stated that “the legality of the exercise of a mere function alleged to be erroneously exercised by one who***is a public officer, can not be inquired into by a proceeding in quo warranto.” The extraordinary remedy of quo warranto is properly employed to test the actual right to an office or franchise. It can afford no relief for official misconduct, and can not be employed to test the mere legality of official action by public officers.

[13]*13Therefore, this action is dismissed, sua sponte.

Complaint dismissed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 N.E.2d 743, 60 Ohio St. 2d 12, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 162, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-berry-v-tackett-ohio-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack