State Ex Rel. Whetsel v. Murphy

174 N.E. 252, 122 Ohio St. 620, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 620, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 413, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 219
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 24, 1930
Docket22553
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 174 N.E. 252 (State Ex Rel. Whetsel v. Murphy) 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. Whetsel v. Murphy, 174 N.E. 252, 122 Ohio St. 620, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 620, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 413, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 219 (Ohio 1930).

Opinion

By the Court.

This cause comes to this court upon a petition in error to review an order made by the court of common pleas of Franklin county sitting as a board to decide an election contest. Contestor Whetsel and the contestee Murphy were candidates at the primary election for the office of coroner of Franklin county. Murphy was a physician and upon the primary ballots the letters “M. D.” were appended after his name. It was claimed before the court of common pleas, and also in this court, that those letters which characterized him as a physician invalidated all votes cast for him and that Whetsel having received the next highest number of votes at the primary election was entitled to be declared the nominee.

This court is of opinion that it is unlawful to place any characterization or description either before or after the name of a candidate upon a ballot, either at the primary or general election, where there is not such identity of the names of two or *621 more candidates as to justify some description which will permit the voter to make an intelligent expression of his choice.

On the other hand, the primary election has already been held, and no objection was made to the descriptive matter, although it appears that by the exercise of due diligence an effective objection could have been made in time to have prevented the descriptive matter being placed upon the ballot. The primary election having been closed and the result declared the court will not order the choice of the people at the primary election to be disregarded.

The order of the common pleas court will therefore be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Kinkade, J., not participating.

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

Related

Lewis v. New York State Board of Elections
178 Misc. 2d 395 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
State Ex Rel. Klein v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections
656 N.E.2d 1031 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
People Ex Rel. Richter v. Telford
242 N.E.2d 464 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1992)
Douville v. Docking
501 P.2d 778 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1972)
MTR. LICHTMAN v. Bd. of Elections
261 N.E.2d 610 (New York Court of Appeals, 1970)
Toigo v. Columbia County Board of Elections
51 Misc. 2d 754 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
State ex rel. Rainey v. Crowe
382 S.W.2d 38 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1964)
State ex rel. Ethell v. Hendricks
165 Ohio St. (N.S.) 217 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1956)
State Ex Rel. Duffy v. Sweeney
89 N.E.2d 641 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1949)
Mehling v. Moorehead
14 N.E.2d 15 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 N.E. 252, 122 Ohio St. 620, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 620, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 413, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-whetsel-v-murphy-ohio-1930.