State ex rel. Gardner v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Gardner v. Smith

233 N.E.2d 325, 13 Ohio St. 2d 29, 42 Ohio Op. 2d 32, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 460

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 10, 1968·No. No. 40822·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant contends, as his sole question of law, that Section 3501.38, Revised Code, so far as it specifies requirements for the circulator’s affidavit, is not applicable to referenda on wholly municipal questions. But see State, ex rel. Janasik v. Sarosy, 12 Ohio St. 2d 5.

However, at least 1070 valid signatures were required to put appellant’s issue on the ballot. The Court of Appeals found that 104 signatures on the petitions filed were invalid for reasons having nothing to do with the affidavit of the circulator, leaving only 1062 otherwise valid signatures.

Judgment affirmed.

Tapi, C. J., Zimmermah, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and SchNeider, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant contends, as his sole question of law, that Section 3501.38, Revised Code, so far as it specifies requirements for the circulator’s affidavit, is not applicable to referenda on wholly municipal questions. But see State, ex rel. Janasik v. Sarosy, 12 Ohio St. 2d 5.

However, at least 1070 valid signatures were required to put appellant’s issue on the ballot. The Court of Appeals found that 104 signatures on the petitions filed were invalid for reasons having nothing to do with the affidavit of the circulator, leaving only 1062 otherwise valid signatures.

Judgment affirmed.

Tapi, C. J., Zimmermah, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and SchNeider, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Gardner v. Smith, 233 N.E.2d 325, 13 Ohio St. 2d 29, 42 Ohio Op. 2d 32, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 460 (Ohio 1968).

Pincite

233 N.E.2d 325 (State ex rel. Gardner v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related