Braden, Application of
| Decision Date | 23 December 1957 |
| Citation | 105 Ohio App. 285,148 N.E.2d 83 |
| Parties | , 6 O.O.2d 84 Application of George C. BRADEN, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, Requesting Suspension of the License of Fred Youngblood to Operate Motor Vehicles. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Wm. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., Hugh A. Sherer, Chief Counsel, and C. Richard Marsh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Irwin I. Aronoff, Cincinnati, for appellee.
In the Court of Common Pleas, George C. Braden, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, sought the suspension of the license of Fred Youngblood to operate his automobile for a period of one year, pursuant to Section 4507.40 of the Revised Code. Appellee, Youngblood, moved to quash and dismiss the proceedings and, upon oral argument, the Court below sustained said motion. It is from this ruling that the Registrar, appellant, appeals. The contention of Youngblood is that said section 4507.40, Revised Code, was passed as an emergency measure and that it was not passed in conformity with the Constitution of Ohio, Section 1d of Article II, and that, therefore, the Act is inapplicable to him inasmuch as the offenses charged against him occurred prior to the effective date of the statute.
Section 1d of Art. II of the Ohio Constitution provides as follows:
'* * * Such emergency laws upon a yea and nay vote must receive the vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each branch of the general assembly, and the reason for such necessity shall be set forth in one section of the law, which section shall be passed only upon a yea and nay vote, upon a separate roll call thereon.' (Italics added.)
It is admitted by the Attorney General that the Senate voted only once on its committee report, and that, although the report received the necessary two-thirds vote, the Senate failed subsequently in any Section of the bill, by two-thirds vote, to set forth the 'reasons for such necessity' for the passage of the law as required by the Constitution. The Attorney General contends that it isn't necessary for the Senate to pass specifically upon the 'reasons for such necessity;' that the passage of a bill of necessity on the first reading, implies a finding by the Senate of good 'reasons for such necessity;' that the language of the Constitution, requiring the setting forth of the 'reasons for such necessity shall be set forth in one section of the law' is directory and not mandatory. With this reasoning, we cannot agree.
The very purpose of this section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Lawrence
...else," Beach v. Mizner, 131 Ohio St. 481, 485, 3 N.E.2d 417 (1936). {¶ 13} " ‘Shall’ means must." Application of Braden, 105 Ohio App. 285, 286, 148 N.E.2d 83 (1st Dist.1957). See also Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102, 107, 271 N.E.2d 834 (1971), citing Cleveland Ry. C......
-
Dalton-Webb v. Vill. of Wakeman
...means must." Wilson v. Lawrence, 150 Ohio St.3d 368, 2017-Ohio-1410, 81 N.E.3d 1242, ¶ 13, quoting Application of Braden, 105 Ohio App. 285, 286, 148 N.E.2d 83 (1st Dist.1957). "[W]e repeatedly have recognized that use of the term 'shall' in a statute connotes a mandatory obligation unless ......
-
State v. Noling
...means must." Wilson v. Lawrence , 150 Ohio St.3d 368, 2017-Ohio-1410, 81 N.E.3d 1242, ¶ 13, citing Application of Braden , 105 Ohio App. 285, 286, 148 N.E.2d 83 (1st Dist.1957). "[W]e repeatedly have recognized that use of the term ‘shall’ in a statute connotes a mandatory obligation unless......
-
Village of Ridgefield Park v. Bergen County Bd. of Taxation
...I, par. 1. The word 'shall', as used in this section of the Constitution, means 'must.' In the case of the Application of Braden, 105 Ohio App. 285, 148 N.E.2d 83 (Ct.App.1957), appeal dismissed 167 Ohio St. 548, 150 N.E.2d 294 (Sup.Ct.1958), it was held that the word 'shall' in the Constit......