State ex rel. Hughes v. Brown
| Decision Date | 05 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 72-432,72-434 and 72-435,s. 72-432 |
| Citation | 60 O.O.2d 23,285 N.E.2d 376,31 Ohio St.2d 41 |
| Parties | , 60 O.O.2d 23 The STATE ex rel. HUGHES et al., v. BROWN, Secretary of State. The STATE ex rel. CARNEY, v. BROWN, Secretary of State. The STATE ex rel. GAROFOLI, v. BROWN, Secretary of State. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
These original actions arose as a result of the filing of complaints in this court for writs of prohibition by relators Robert E. Hughes, Saul G. Stillman, John J. Carney and Anthony J. Garofoli, all of whom are members of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.
Complainants allege that they were summarily removed as members of the Board of Elections by respondent, Ted W. Brown, Secretary of State of Ohio, and that such action is unconstitutional, and therefore pray for writs of prohibition to issue.
In each case, this court entered an order for an alternative writ of prohibition, directing respondent to show cause before this court on or before June 19, 1972, why respondent should not be permanently prohibited from dismissing the relators as members of the Board of Elections.
On June 19, 1972, respondent filed a 'motion to dissolve alternative writ,' with attached exhibits. No additional pleadings or data have been filed by respondent.
William J. Kraus, Cleveland, for relators in case No. 72-432.
John R. Jewitt, Jr., Cleveland, for relator in case No. 72-434.
John F. Ray, Jr., Cleveland, for relator in case No. 72-435.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Thomas V. Martin, Columbus, for respondent.
The essence of the complaints filed by relators herein is that respondent, in endeavoring to summarily dismiss each of them, failed to comply with the constitutional mandate of Section 38, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and the statutory mandate of R.C. 3.07.
The court, in paragraphs one and two of the syllabus of State, ex rel. Hoel v. Brown (1922), 105 Ohio St. 479, stated:
'1. In 1912 the people of Ohio adopted, as a part of the Constitution, section 38, article II, in which, among other things, it is written: 'Laws shall be passed providing for the prompt removal from office, upon complaint and hearing, of all officers.' * * *
'2. By this section they plainly provided that such removal should be made only 'upon complaint and hearing. " (Emphasis added.)
Further, R.C. § 3.07 provides that only '* * * upon complaint and hearing * * *' shall a person holding office in this state '* * * have judgment of forfeiture of said office with all its emoluments entered thereon against him, creating thereby in said office a vacancy to be filled as prescribed by law. * * *.' (Emphasis added.)
Relators' complaints allege that they are state officers; that each received notice of dismissal via a telegram dated June 9, 1972; that no written charges were served setting forth the acts charged against them; that no reasons were given for their removal; that no complaint was made against them; that no hearing was held prior to their purported dismissal; and that respondent's endeavor to summarily dismiss them from their office is unconstitutional.
The purpose of an alternative writ of prohibition, as issued herein, is to preserve the existing status of a proceeding, to command the person against who it is issued to show cause to the court why a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Nat. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake County
...rel. Mazzaro, v. Ferguson (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 37, 40, 550 N.E.2d 464, 468. However, relators cite State, ex rel. Hughes, v. Brown (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 41, 60 O.O.2d 23, 285 N.E.2d 376. In Hughes, we issued an alternative writ of prohibition ordering the Secretary of State to show cause w......
-
State ex rel. Underwood v. Silverstein
...Mandamus § 425 (1980); 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 312 (1948); Ex Parte Register, 257 Ala. 408, 60 So.2d 41 (1952); State ex rel. Hughes v. Brown, 31 Ohio St.2d 41, 285 N.E.2d 376 (1972). We, therefore, conclude that where a rule to show cause has been issued in an election mandamus action, this w......
-
State ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gaul
...of an alternative writ of prohibition is to preserve the existing status of a proceeding. State ex rel. Hughes v. Brown (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 41, 43, 60 O.O.2d 23, 24, 285 N.E.2d 376, 377. Notwithstanding the August 21, 1998 alternative writ issued by this court, which prohibited respondent......
-
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. Radel
...have been admitted. Beacon Journal argues that we have not always strictly adhered to Temke. See State, ex rel. Hughes, v. Brown (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 41, 60 O.O.2d 23, 285 N.E.2d 376; State, ex rel. Cleveland Hts., v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 47, 553 N.E.2d 249; St......