State ex rel. Macko v. Monzula

356 N.E.2d 493, 48 Ohio St. 2d 35, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 129, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 707
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 27, 1976·No. No. 76-1068·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

E. C. 3501.38(E) prescribes the form for the affidavit of a circulator on petitions presented to a public officer for the purpose of holding an election on any issue. The statute requires that the circulator must state that he witnessed the affixing of every signature, that all signers were to the best of his knowledge and belief qualified to sign, and that every signature is to the best of his knowledge and belief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be.

[36]*36The affidavits of the circulators on the petitions -filed September 2, 1976, fail to state that to the best of circu-lator’s knowledge and belief all signers were qualified to sign.

. This court has consistently demanded that the requirements for circulator’s affidavits be strictly complied with. See State, ex rel. Barton, v. Bd. of Elections (1975), 44 Ohio St. 2d 33.

Accordingly, respondents’ motion for summary judgment is allowed.

Cause dismissed.

O’Neill, C. J., Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown, and P. Brown, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., concurs in the judgment.

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

State ex rel. Macko v. Monzula, 356 N.E.2d 493, 48 Ohio St. 2d 35, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 129, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 707 (Ohio 1976).

356 N.E.2d 493 (State ex rel. Macko v. Monzula) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Murray v. Scioto County Board of Elections
2010 Ohio 5846 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
State Ex Rel. Cody v. Stahl, Unpublished Decision (11-20-2003)
2003 Ohio 6180 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
State ex rel. Van de Kerkhoff v. Dowling
572 N.E.2d 653 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1991)
MacKo v. Byron
555 F. Supp. 470 (N.D. Ohio, 1982)
Macko v. Bryon
641 F.2d 447 (Sixth Circuit, 1981)