State ex rel. Shumate v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Shumate v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections

591 N.E.2d 1247, 64 Ohio St. 3d 1403, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1696

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1992

Docket92-508

StatusPublished

This text of 591 N.E.2d 1247 (State ex rel. Shumate v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections) 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. Shumate v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections, 591 N.E.2d 1247, 64 Ohio St. 3d 1403, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1696 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In Prohibition. This cause came on for further consideration upon respondent’s motion for rehearing. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion for rehearing be, and the same is hereby, denied, effective June 2, 1992.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the following be added to footnote 1 of the opinion of this court issued on May 20, 1992:

“See, also, State, ex rel. Burech, v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Elections (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 154, 19 [1404]*1404OBR 437, 484 N.E.2d 153, in which we sua sponte converted a claim in prohibition to one in mandamus. We perceive no prejudice to respondent because the principal issue would be argued the same way under either a mandamus or prohibition theory. Moreover, since we consider the case as one in prohibition, respondent’s argument that the complaint should be dismissed because it was not captioned as a ‘petition’ in mandamus is moot.”

Holmes and Resnick, JJ., would grant.

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

In Prohibition. This cause came on for further consideration upon respondent’s motion for rehearing. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion for rehearing be, and the same is hereby, denied, effective June 2, 1992.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the following be added to footnote 1 of the opinion of this court issued on May 20, 1992:

“See, also, State, ex rel. Burech, v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Elections (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 154, 19 [1404]*1404OBR 437, 484 N.E.2d 153, in which we sua sponte converted a claim in prohibition to one in mandamus. We perceive no prejudice to respondent because the principal issue would be argued the same way under either a mandamus or prohibition theory. Moreover, since we consider the case as one in prohibition, respondent’s argument that the complaint should be dismissed because it was not captioned as a ‘petition’ in mandamus is moot.”

Holmes and Resnick, JJ., would grant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 N.E.2d 1247, 64 Ohio St. 3d 1403, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-shumate-v-portage-cty-bd-of-elections-ohio-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack