State ex rel. Endress v. Wellington

166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 166
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 13, 1957
DocketNo. 34733
StatusPublished

This text of 166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 166 (State ex rel. Endress v. Wellington) 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. Endress v. Wellington, 166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 166 (Ohio 1957).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In order to have the 10 per cent required by Section 731.29, Revised Code, it was necessary to have 43 valid [167]*167signatures on the petition. After withdrawal of 39 of the 61 signatures, there remained only 22 valid signatures on the petition. All the questions raised with respect to the claimed ineffectiveness of the withdrawal of those 39 signatures from the referendum petition must be disposed of adversely to relator’s contentions on authority of Lynn v. Supple, Clerk, ante, 154.

As to the supplemental petition filed on October 28, 1955, it was not filed “within 30 days after” the ordinance was “filed with the mayor” and “passed by the legislative authority” of the village on September 14, 1955. Hence, it was not filed within the time limited by Section 731.29, Revised Code, for the filing of a municipal referendum petition. There is no legislative provision for filing supplemental petitions or adding additional signatures to such a referendum petition after that time. Cf. Section 3519.16, Revised Code, relative to state referendum petitions.

Writ denied.

'WeYGANDT, C. J., ZlMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL, TAPT, Matthias and Herbert, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-endress-v-wellington-ohio-1957.