State ex rel. Cofall v. Board of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Cofall v. Board of Elections

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 191

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 29, 1964

DocketNo. 38778

StatusPublished

This text of 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 191 (State ex rel. Cofall v. Board of Elections) 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. Cofall v. Board of Elections, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 191 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Section 2303.01, Eevised Code, provides for “a Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas.” Section 2303.03, Eevised Code, states that the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas shall also be the clerk of the Court of Appeals. Thus, the clerk serves more than one court. The office for years has been popularly known as ‘ ‘ Clerk of Courts ” or “ County Clerk. ’ ’ [192]*192This is the only clerk’s office in the county for which there is an election in the primary election of this year. There can be no confusion about the candidacy, and the election ballots will properly state the name of the office.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Section 2303.01, Eevised Code, provides for “a Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas.” Section 2303.03, Eevised Code, states that the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas shall also be the clerk of the Court of Appeals. Thus, the clerk serves more than one court. The office for years has been popularly known as ‘ ‘ Clerk of Courts ” or “ County Clerk. ’ ’ [192]*192This is the only clerk’s office in the county for which there is an election in the primary election of this year. There can be no confusion about the candidacy, and the election ballots will properly state the name of the office.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cofall-v-board-of-elections-ohio-1964.