State Ex Rel. Hein v. Cull

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Hein v. Cull

21 N.E.2d 991, 135 Ohio St. 602, 135 Ohio St. (N.S.) 602, 14 Ohio Op. 532, 1939 Ohio LEXIS 268

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 5, 1939

Docket27445

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 N.E.2d 991 (State Ex Rel. Hein v. Cull) 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. Hein v. Cull, 21 N.E.2d 991, 135 Ohio St. 602, 135 Ohio St. (N.S.) 602, 14 Ohio Op. 532, 1939 Ohio LEXIS 268 (Ohio 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Section 140 of the Charter of the city of Cleveland provides that “no person in the classified service of the city shall act as an officer of a political organization” or engage otherwise in political activities.

The question for determination is' whether the relator, holding a temporary appointment under the conditions described, is a person in the classified service *604 of the city of Cleveland within the operation of Section 140 of the Charter.

In line with the holding in the case of State, ex rel. Slovensky, v. Taylor, Dir., ante, 601, it is onr opinion that he is, and is therefore subject to the restraints imposed on such persons as a condition of their employment.

Under the circumstances, the respondents properly refused to certify relator’s name on the payroll.

The relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus, a-nd the same will be denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams and Myers, JJ., concur.

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