State ex rel. Walter v. Edgar

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Walter v. Edgar

469 N.E.2d 842, 13 Ohio St. 3d 1, 13 Ohio B. 377, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1222

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 27, 1984

DocketNo. 84-1348

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 469 N.E.2d 842 (State ex rel. Walter v. Edgar) 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. Walter v. Edgar, 469 N.E.2d 842, 13 Ohio St. 3d 1, 13 Ohio B. 377, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1222 (Ohio 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

R.C. 731.28 provides, in part:

“When a petition is filed with the city auditor or village clerk, signed by the required number of electors proposing an ordinance or other measure, such auditor or clerk shall, after ten days, certify the text of the proposed ordinance or measure to the board of elections. * * *” (Emphasis added.)

Respondent contends she is not required to certify the proposals because they would be unconstitutional if approved. This argument is without merit. It is well-settled that any claim alleging the unconstitutionality of a proposal prior to its approval is premature. State, ex rel. Cramer, v. Brown (1983), 7 Ohio St. 3d 5, 6, citing Pfeifer v. Graves (1913), 88 Ohio St. 473, paragraph five of the syllabus; Weinland v. Fulton (1918), 99 Ohio St. 10; Cincinnati v. Hillenbrand (1921), 103 Ohio St. 286, paragraph two of the syllabus; State, ex rel. Marcolin, v. Smith (1922), 105 Ohio St. 570; State, ex rel. Kittel, v. Bigelow (1941), 138 Ohio St. 497 [21 O.O. 380], paragraph one of the syllabus.

We also reject respondent’s contention that the proposal concerning the delinquent utility account is not a question which “* * * municipalities may now or hereafter be authorized by law to control by legislative action” and thus, is not subject to the power of initiative as set forth in Section If Article II of the Ohio Constitution. R.C. 715.06 clearly grants to a municipality the general power to regulate all aspects of its utility companies.

No claim with regard to the signatures or any other aspect of the petitions having been made which would obviate respondent’s duty under R.C. 731.28, the writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J.P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

R.C. 731.28 provides, in part:

“When a petition is filed with the city auditor or village clerk, signed by the required number of electors proposing an ordinance or other measure, such auditor or clerk shall, after ten days, certify the text of the proposed ordinance or measure to the board of elections. * * *” (Emphasis added.)

Respondent contends she is not required to certify the proposals because they would be unconstitutional if approved. This argument is without merit. It is well-settled that any claim alleging the unconstitutionality of a proposal prior to its approval is premature. State, ex rel. Cramer, v. Brown (1983), 7 Ohio St. 3d 5, 6, citing Pfeifer v. Graves (1913), 88 Ohio St. 473, paragraph five of the syllabus; Weinland v. Fulton (1918), 99 Ohio St. 10; Cincinnati v. Hillenbrand (1921), 103 Ohio St. 286, paragraph two of the syllabus; State, ex rel. Marcolin, v. Smith (1922), 105 Ohio St. 570; State, ex rel. Kittel, v. Bigelow (1941), 138 Ohio St. 497 [21 O.O. 380], paragraph one of the syllabus.

We also reject respondent’s contention that the proposal concerning the delinquent utility account is not a question which “* * * municipalities may now or hereafter be authorized by law to control by legislative action” and thus, is not subject to the power of initiative as set forth in Section If Article II of the Ohio Constitution. R.C. 715.06 clearly grants to a municipality the general power to regulate all aspects of its utility companies.

No claim with regard to the signatures or any other aspect of the petitions having been made which would obviate respondent’s duty under R.C. 731.28, the writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J.P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 N.E.2d 842, 13 Ohio St. 3d 1, 13 Ohio B. 377, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-walter-v-edgar-ohio-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack