State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 00-1647.
Decision Date | 11 October 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 00-1647.,00-1647. |
Citation | 90 Ohio St.3d 238,736 NE 2d 893 |
Parties | THE STATE EX REL. BALDZICKI ET AL. v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Kelley, McCann & Livingstone, LLP, Stephen M. O'Bryan, Thomas J. Lee and Timothy J. Duff; Brunner, Kirby & Jeffries Co., L.P.A., Jennifer L. Brunner, Rick L. Brunner and David R. Funk, for relators.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Reno J. Oradini, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.
Donald J. McTigue; Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, John J. Chester and J. Craig Wright, for intervenor respondent Crocker Park, LLC. Per Curiam.
Relators request a writ of prohibition to prevent the submission of Ordinance No. 2000-68 to the Westlake electors at the November 7, 2000 election. In order to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, relators must establish that (1) the board is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause injury for which no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists. State ex rel. Henry v. McMonagle (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 543, 544, 721 N.E.2d 1051, 1052.
Therefore, in order for the writ to issue, relators must first establish that the board exercised quasi-judicial power in denying their protest and placing Ordinance No. 2000-68 on the November 7 ballot. See State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 289, 291, 649 N.E.2d 1205, 1207 ().
"Quasi-judicial authority is the power to hear and determine controversies between the public and individuals that require a hearing resembling a judicial trial." (Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908, 910; State ex rel. Hensley v. Nowak (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 98, 99, 556 N.E.2d 171, 173.
In State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 69, 72, 647 N.E.2d 769, 772, we held that prohibition would not issue to prevent a board of elections from conducting an election until 1997 for the office of city council member because, among other reasons, the board was not required to hold a quasi-judicial hearing on the matter:
(Emphasis added.) Although relators filed a protest here, no statute or other pertinent law required the board to conduct a hearing resembling a quasi-judicial hearing on their protest against the placement of Ordinance No. 2000-68 on the election ballot. Cf. R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) and (2), providing for board hearings on written protests against petitions and candidacies. Relators' protest was neither against petitions nor candidacies. In addition, the mere fact that such a hearing was required on the other protest against an initiative petition for a separate ordinance did not transform that portion of the hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2000-68 into a required quasi-judicial proceeding. In fact, relators do not so argue.
Relators instead claim that any protest hearing before a board of elections is a quasi-judicial proceeding and cite State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 302, 686 N.E.2d 238, in support of their proposition. But Cooker Restaurant involved statutory protests requiring quasi-judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State of Ohio v. BODYKE, 2008-2502.
...... Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. Martin and ...’ ” Norwood at ¶ 115, quoting State ex rel. Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 ...Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist. of Summit Cty. (1929), 120 Ohio St. 464, 473, 166 N.E. 407. ...Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 ......
-
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n
...with our well-settled precedent that we will not indulge in advisory opinions"), citing State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 90 Ohio St.3d 238, 242, 736 N.E.2d 893 (2000) ; Egan v. Natl. Distillers & Chem. Corp. , 25 Ohio St.3d 176, 495 N.E.2d 904 (1986), syllabus ("i......
-
Allen v. Totes/Isotoner Corp.
...rel. White v. Kilbane Koch, 96 Ohio St.3d 395, 2002-Ohio-4848, 775 N.E.2d 508, ¶ 18, citing State ex rel Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 238, 242, 736 N.E.2d 893; Egan v. Natl. Distillers & Chem. Corp. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 176, 25 OBR 243, 495 N.E.2d 904, ......
-
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n
...precedent that we will not indulge in advisory opinions"), citing State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 90 Ohio St 3d 238, 242, 736 N.E.2d 893 (2000); Egan v. Natl. Distillers & Chem. Corp., 25 Ohio St.3d 176, 495 N.E.2d 904 (1986), syllabus ("it is well-settled that th......