State ex rel. Kay v. Brown
| Decision Date | 02 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 70-663,70-663 |
| Parties | , 53 O.O.2d 284 The STATE, ex rel. KAY, v. BROWN, Secy. of State. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Richard B. Kay, in pro. per.
Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen., and John M. West, Columbus, for respondent.
This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. Relator, a candidate for the United States Senate of the American Independent Party, seeks to prevent respondent, Secretary of State, from counting the votes cast at the November 3, 1970, election for Howard Metzenbaum as a candidate for United States Senate. The cause is before the court on the petition of relator and answer of the respondent.
Relator alleges that he filed a complaint under R.C. 3517.13, charging Metzenbaum with violation of R. C. 3517.08 through R. C. 3517.12 (Corrupt Practices Act), and seeks to prevent respondent from counting the votes cast for Mr. Metzenbaum.
In this action, relator seeks to obtain a writ of mandamus to prevent respondent from counting the votes. Mandamus is remedial in nature and commands the performance of a duty enjoined by law. Relator does not seek to compel the performance of a duty, but rather to prevent respondent from performing an act. Although relator designates his action as one in mandamus, the relief he sseks is injunctive in nature. The original jurisdiction of this court, conferred by the Constitution, extends only to mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, prohibition and procedendo. This court does not have authority to entertain an original action in injunction. State, ex rel. Smith, v. Indus. Comm. (1942), 139 Ohio St. 303, 39 N.E.2d 838.
Further, relator has an adequate remedy at law. If he should prevail in his action under R.C. 3517.13, that section provides that if the candidate is found to have violated those sections such candidate shall forfeit his election to the office.
Finally, the election to which this action is directed has now passed and Metzenbaum was not elected; therefore, the case is now moot.
Writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, ex rel. Esch, v. Lake County Bd. of Elections
...v. Automatic Data Processing Bd. of Montgomery Cty. (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 164, 538 N.E.2d 105; State, ex rel. Kay, v. Brown (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 105, 53 O.O.2d 284, 264 N.E.2d 908; State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 40 O.O.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631; State, ex ......
-
State ex rel. Taylor v. Lucas County Bd. of Elections
...not count the votes cast for Sandy Bihn. This same issue was discussed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State, ex rel. Kay, v. Brown (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 105, 53 O.O.2d 284, 264 N.E.2d 908. In that case, relator, a candidate for the United States Senate, sought to prevent respondent, Secretary......
-
State, ex rel. Stamps v. Automatic Data Processing Bd. of Montgomery County
...rather than to compel, official action. Id. at 155, 40 O.O.2d at 150, 228 N.E.2d at 643. See, also, State, ex rel. Kay, v. Brown (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 105, 53 O.O.2d 284, 264 N.E.2d 908. If it does, the action must be dismissed because this court has no original jurisdiction in injunction. ......
-
William Mullins v. Clark Equipment Co., 94-LW-1079
... ... of liability are laid out in State Farm Fire & Cas. v ... Chrysler Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 1, 7. "[U]nder ... the ... We ... disagree ... State ex rel. Buck v. McCabe (1942), 140 Ohio ... St.535; Kidd v. Cincinnati Transit Co. (1970), 24 ... ...