State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections, 00-288.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 88 Ohio St.3d 187,724 NE 2d 775 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-288.,00-288. |
| Parties | THE STATE EX REL. LANDIS v. MORROW COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 18 February 2000 |
88 Ohio St.3d 187
724 NE 2d 775
v.
MORROW COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL
No. 00-288.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted February 16, 2000.
Decided February 18, 2000.
Gregory A. Perry, Morrow County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents Morrow County Board of Elections and its members.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Arthur J. Marziale, Jr. and David S. Timms, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State.
Per Curiam.
We deny the writ for the following reasons.
First, res judicata bars Landis's present action. "A valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction * * * that was the subject matter of the previous action." Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus. Further, as we held in State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 182, 184-186, 685 N.E.2d 507, 509-510, in the absence of any language in the entry to the contrary, a dismissal for want of prosecution of an expedited election matter under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) and S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11) operates as an adjudication on the merits that bars the refiling of a second expedited election matter "`based upon any claim arising out of the
As we observed in SuperAmerica, "a contrary holding would circumvent S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(C) (`No pleading, memorandum, brief, or other document may be filed after the filing deadlines imposed by these rules * * *') by permitting parties to refile and proceed with their original actions following dismissal for want of prosecution." Id., 80 Ohio St.3d at 186, 685 N.E.2d at 510. Thus, based on SuperAmerica, Landis should have been on additional notice that his failure to follow the specific requirements for S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) would result in dismissal with prejudice of his expedited election case.
Second, Landis's current...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 2008-1813.
...the propriety of that directive and subsequently issued directives. See State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775 ("we have held that a delay as brief as nine days can preclude our consideration of the merits of an expedited election......
-
State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2010 Ohio 1115 (Ohio 3/23/2010), 2010-0375.
...the date the board denied his protest to file this case unreasonable. Cf. State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775 ("we have held that a delay as brief as nine days can preclude our consideration of the merits of an expedited electi......
-
The State Ex Rel. Owens v. Brunner, 2010-0481.
...of the merits of an expedited election case.” (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775. But here, at least some of Owens's delay in filing this action was reasonable. Part of the ten-day delay resulted from Owens's d......
-
State ex rel. v. Bd. of Elections, 2007-1697.
...to certify her school board candidacy before filing this case. See, e.g., State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775, citing Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 656 N.E.2d 1276 ("we have held that a de......