State Ex Rel. Weller v. Schirmer

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Weller v. Schirmer

3 N.E.2d 352, 131 Ohio St. 455, 131 Ohio St. (N.S.) 455, 6 Ohio Op. 132, 1936 Ohio LEXIS 280

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 8, 1936

Docket26076

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 N.E.2d 352 (State Ex Rel. Weller v. Schirmer) 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. Weller v. Schirmer, 3 N.E.2d 352, 131 Ohio St. 455, 131 Ohio St. (N.S.) 455, 6 Ohio Op. 132, 1936 Ohio LEXIS 280 (Ohio 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause came on to be heard upon appeal on questions of law from the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county, and was argued by counsel.

Relator-appellant instituted mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel the respondents-appellees, as members of the Board of Elections, to place his name on the judicial ballot for the Court of Common Pleas at the November 3, 1936, election, for the term beginning February 9, 1937, in pursuance of Section 1532, General Code prior to the repeal of that section by Plouse Bill No. 652 (116 O. L., pt. 2, page ____), the relator-appellant having filed with the Board of Elections a petition for nomination for that office prior to the date of the repeal of that section.

The cause was heard by the Court of Appeals upon the petition, answer, evidence and statements of counsel. Relator disclaimed any desire to seek an office under the amended statute, but maintained that, having perfected his nomination for judge prior to the date when Section 1532, General Code, was repealed, he acquired the right to become a candidate, and that if *456 House Bill 652 be construed to apply to the term of office which he sought it is unconstitutional as retroactive and ex post facto.

The Court of Appeals found that relator by reason of filing such petition acquired no vested, constitutional or other right to have his petition considered by respondents for an office provided for by the repealed section; that such office ceased to exist and had been abolished; and that relator’s name should not, therefore, be placed upon the ballot for an office which had been abolished subsequent to the filing of his nominating petition and previous to the election covering such office. A writ of mandamus was denied by the Court of Appeals.

On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, affirmed on authority of State, ex rel. Gustafson, v. Krause et al., Bd. of Elections, ante, 97.

Judgment affirmed.

Wbygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur. Matthias, J., not participating.

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

This cause came on to be heard upon appeal on questions of law from the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county, and was argued by counsel.

Relator-appellant instituted mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel the respondents-appellees, as members of the Board of Elections, to place his name on the judicial ballot for the Court of Common Pleas at the November 3, 1936, election, for the term beginning February 9, 1937, in pursuance of Section 1532, General Code prior to the repeal of that section by Plouse Bill No. 652 (116 O. L., pt. 2, page ____), the relator-appellant having filed with the Board of Elections a petition for nomination for that office prior to the date of the repeal of that section.

The cause was heard by the Court of Appeals upon the petition, answer, evidence and statements of counsel. Relator disclaimed any desire to seek an office under the amended statute, but maintained that, having perfected his nomination for judge prior to the date when Section 1532, General Code, was repealed, he acquired the right to become a candidate, and that if *456 House Bill 652 be construed to apply to the term of office which he sought it is unconstitutional as retroactive and ex post facto.

The Court of Appeals found that relator by reason of filing such petition acquired no vested, constitutional or other right to have his petition considered by respondents for an office provided for by the repealed section; that such office ceased to exist and had been abolished; and that relator’s name should not, therefore, be placed upon the ballot for an office which had been abolished subsequent to the filing of his nominating petition and previous to the election covering such office. A writ of mandamus was denied by the Court of Appeals.

On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, affirmed on authority of State, ex rel. Gustafson, v. Krause et al., Bd. of Elections, ante, 97.

Judgment affirmed.

Wbygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur. Matthias, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.E.2d 352, 131 Ohio St. 455, 131 Ohio St. (N.S.) 455, 6 Ohio Op. 132, 1936 Ohio LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-weller-v-schirmer-ohio-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack