State ex rel. O'Grady v. Brown

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. O'Grady v. Brown

354 N.E.2d 690, 47 Ohio St. 2d 265, 1 Ohio Op. 3d 378, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 690

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 22, 1976

DocketNo. 76-941

StatusPublished

This text of 354 N.E.2d 690 (State ex rel. O'Grady v. Brown) 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. O'Grady v. Brown, 354 N.E.2d 690, 47 Ohio St. 2d 265, 1 Ohio Op. 3d 378, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 690 (Ohio 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The circulation of more than ene proposed constitutional amendment in a single initiative petition was approved by this court in State, ex rel. Hubbell, v. Bettman (1931), 124 Ohio St. 24.

Although the proposed amendments herein contain multiple provisions, each of the amendments contains one general purpose.

This court finds no abuse of respondent’s discretion in the preparation of the condensed texts. They are sufficiently complete to inform the voters of the issues before them.

Respondent’s authority to reject part-petitions which are not properly verified was upheld in State, ex rel. Herbert, v. Mitchell (1939), 136 Ohio St. 1, 8.

There being no showing of respondent’s failure to perform a clear, .legal duty, or abuse of discretion in the performance of that duty, the writ of mandamus is denied.

There being no showing that respondent is .about to perform acts beyond his authority, the writ of prohibition is denied.

Writs deniecl.

O’Neill, C- J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and. P. Brown, JJ„ concur,.

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