State ex rel. Burke v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Burke v. Smith

102 Ohio St. (N.S.) 673

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 16, 1921

DocketNos. 17058 and 17061

StatusPublished

This text of 102 Ohio St. (N.S.) 673 (State ex rel. Burke v. Smith) 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. Burke v. Smith, 102 Ohio St. (N.S.) 673 (Ohio 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

In the first case above entitled the relator, John F. Burke, sought the same relief as in the case of State, ex rel. Durbin, v. Smith, Secretary of State, ante, 591; while in the second case above entitled mandamus was sought to compel the attorney general to certify that a synopsis tendered and submitted to him by the relator was a truthful statement of the contents and purposes of the so-called “Administrative Code,” the petition alleging that the attorney general declined to comply upon the sole ground that the act was not [674]*674subject to a referendum because it contained an emergency clause.

The issues involved in these cases being identical, writs are denied for the reasons set forth in State, ex rel Durbin, v. Smith, Secretary of State, ante, 591.

Writs denied.

Hough, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Marshall, C. J., Johnson and Wanamaker, JJ., dissent.

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

By the Court.

In the first case above entitled the relator, John F. Burke, sought the same relief as in the case of State, ex rel. Durbin, v. Smith, Secretary of State, ante, 591; while in the second case above entitled mandamus was sought to compel the attorney general to certify that a synopsis tendered and submitted to him by the relator was a truthful statement of the contents and purposes of the so-called “Administrative Code,” the petition alleging that the attorney general declined to comply upon the sole ground that the act was not [674]*674subject to a referendum because it contained an emergency clause.

The issues involved in these cases being identical, writs are denied for the reasons set forth in State, ex rel Durbin, v. Smith, Secretary of State, ante, 591.

Writs denied.

Hough, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Marshall, C. J., Johnson and Wanamaker, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 Ohio St. (N.S.) 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-burke-v-smith-ohio-1921.