State ex rel. Annable v. Stokes
| Decision Date | 24 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 70-273,70-273 |
| Citation | 262 N.E.2d 863,24 Ohio St.2d 32,53 O.O.2d 18 |
| Parties | , 53 O.O.2d 18 The STATE, ex rel. ANNABLE et al., v. STOKES. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Robert W. Annable, Charles G. Christian, II, and Susann Christian in pro. per.
Falsgraf, Reidy, Shoup & Ault and Harry J. Lehman, Cleveland, for respondent.
This is an action in quo warranto originating in this court. Relators, all private citizens, seek to oust respondent, Louis Stokes, from his office as Congressman of the 21st Congressional District of Ohio and to have such district declared to be unconstitutionally created, and therefore not a valid congressional district.
Relators contend that such district was illegally created by gerrymandering on the basis of race in order to consolidate the black vote to insure the election of the respondent.
The cause is before the court on respondent's motion to dismiss. Respondent bases this motion on the ground that the parties, as individuals, none of whom is claiming a right to the office for himself, do not have a right to bring an action in quo warranto.
As respondent points out, an action in quo warranto may be brought by an individual as a private citizen only when he personally is claiming title to a public office. R.C. § 2733.06; State ex rel. Lindley v. Maccabees, 109 Ohio St. 454, 142 N.E. 888. See State ex rel. Cincinnati v. Butler Water Conservancy Dist., 5 Ohio St.2d 80, 214 N.E.2d 86. In all other instances, such action must be brought by the Attorney General or a prosecuting attorney. 45 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 653, and 656, Quo Warranto, Sections 30 and 33.
It is clear, from an examination of the petition, that none of the relators is claiming title to the office, nor is the action brought by the Attorney General or by a prosecuting attorney.
The motion to dismiss is sustained.
Petition dismissed.
LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for MATTHIAS, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cater v. N. Olmsted
...Cater lacked standing either to appeal Stroh's removal or to pursue quo warranto, even as a taxpayer. State ex rel. Annable v. Stokes (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 32, 53 O.O.2d 18, 262 N.E.2d 863; R.C. 733.58 and 733.59. Moreover, we have said that when no other adequate remedy exists, "[m]andamus......
-
Reisig v. Camarato
...305; State ex rel. Cain v. Kay (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 15, 17, 67 O.O.2d 33, 34, 309 N.E.2d 860, 862; State ex rel. Annable v. Stokes (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 32, 53 O.O.2d 18, 262 N.E.2d 863; see State ex rel. Platz v. Mucci (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 60, 39 O.O.2d 48, 225 N.E.2d 238. Since appellan......
-
State ex rel. E. Cleveland Fire v. Jenkins, 2001-2091.
...office.'" State ex rel. Coyne v. Todia (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 232, 238, 543 N.E.2d 1271, quoting State ex rel. Annable v. Stokes (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 32, 32-33, 53 O.O.2d 18, 262 N.E.2d 863; see, also, State ex rel. Paluf v. Feneli (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 138, 145, 630 N.E.2d 708; Reisig v. C......
-
Dorothy G. Reisig v. Michael Camarato, 96-LW-2346
...did not claim title to a city council seat, a quo warranto action had to be brought by the Attorney General or a prosecuting attorney. See Annable, Furthermore, appellees, arguments that appellant could not maintain a declaratory judgment action or taxpayer's suit cannot be presented for th......