State ex rel. Hinchliffe v. Gibbons, 20406.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 116 Ohio St. 390,156 N.E. 455 |
| Docket Number | No. 20406.,20406. |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. HINCHLIFFE et al. v. GIBBONS et al., City Council of Cleveland. |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1927 |
STATE ex rel. HINCHLIFFE et al.
v.
GIBBONS et al., City Council of Cleveland.
No. 20406.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
April 22, 1927.
Original suit in mandamus by the State, on the relation of Stella Hinchliffe and others, against William G. Gibbons and others, members of the City Council of the City of Cleveland. Writ denied.-[By Editorial Staff.]
[Ohio St. 390]Gaughan & Collins and Walter D. Meals, all of Cleveland, for plaintiffs.
Carl F. Shuler, Director of Law, and Alfred Clum, Asst. Director of Law, both of Cleveland, for defendants.
PER CURIAM.
This is an original suit in this court praying a writ of mandamus
[156 N.E. 456]
against the members of the city council of Cleveland, Ohio, to compel legislative action on the part of the council in the matter of submitting to the electors of the city of Cleveland at a special election the [Ohio St. 391]question of certain amendments to the charter of the city of Cleveland.
Section 9 of article 18 of the Ohio Constitution provides that proposed amendments to a city charter shall be submitted to the electors by the legislative authority of the city, upon petition signed by 10 per cent. of the electors of the municipality, setting forth such proposed amendments. The charter of the city of Cleveland already existing, in section 182 thereof, provides that, when such petitions are filed with the election authorities, the same shall be submitted by the council. That section of the charter further provides:
‘The ordinance providing for the submission of any such amendment shall be submitted to the electors at the next regular municipal election if one shall occur not less than sixty (60) nor more than one hundred and twenty (120) days after its passage; otherwise it shall provide for the submission of the amendment at a special election to be called and held within the time aforesaid.’
Sections 30 and 31 of the Cleveland Charter provide that initiative, referendum, or recall petitions shall be filed with the city clerk, and that within ten days thereafter the clerk shall determine whether there is a sufficient number of signers and attach a certificate showing the result of his examination.
Relators further allege that petitions in all respects sufficient and regular, and containing three times as many signatures as were necessary, proposing charter amendments, were filed with the board of elections on February 11, 1927, and on March 148 1927, they advised the council of the [Ohio St. 392]city of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Twitchell v. Saferin, 2018-1238
...of the executive branch, viz. the board of elections.’ " Semik at 336, 617 N.E.2d 1120, quoting State ex rel. Hinchliffe v. Gibbons , 116 Ohio St. 390, 395, 156 N.E. 455 (1927). For this reason, "the board cannot be granted decisive authority in this area." Id . at 337, 617 N.E.2d 1120.{¶ 2......
-
State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin, 2018-1242
...regarding how to address proposals for the amendment of municipal charters. See, e.g ., State ex rel. Hinchliffe v. Gibbons , 116 Ohio St. 390, 395, 156 N.E. 455 (1927). If the dissent were able to present a genuine question of how Article XVIII, Sections 8 and 9 apply rather than merely at......
-
State ex rel. v. Westlake, 2002-1552.
...prevails because "Nile paramount authority must prevail over the subordinate authority." State ex rel. Hinchliffe v. Gibbons (1927), 116 Ohio St. 390, 395, 156 N.E. 455; State ex rel. Semik v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 334, 335-336, 617 N.E.2d 1120; Huebner, 75 Oh......
-
State ex rel. Abernathy v. Lucas Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 2018-1824
...v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 67 Ohio St.3d 334, 335-336, 617 N.E.2d 1120 (1993), quoting State ex rel. Hinchliffe v. Gibbons , 116 Ohio St. 390, 395, 156 N.E. 455 (1927).{¶ 9} Therefore, as we stated in Maxcy , once the municipal legislative body passes an ordinance placing the propo......