State ex rel. Mikus v. Hirbe

• Decision Date: 08 December 1965
• Citation: 215 N.E.2d 430,34 O.O.2d 490,5 Ohio App.2d 307
• Parties: , 34 O.O.2d 490 The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. HIRBE. The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. MALINOVSKY. The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. METELSKY. which was orally argued as one case, although v. SOLOMON. The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. HOLOMUZKI. The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. BULZOMI.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 307

5 Ohio App.2d 307

215 N.E.2d 430, 34 O.O.2d 490

The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. HIRBE.

The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. MALINOVSKY.

The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. METELSKY. which was orally argued as one case, although v. SOLOMON.

The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. HOLOMUZKI.

The STATE ex rel. MIKUS, Pros. Atty., v. BULZOMI.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain County.

Dec. 8, 1965.

Paul J. Mikus, Pros. Atty., and Nicholas R. Curci, Lorain, for relator.

Lucas, Prendergast, Albright & Warren, Columbus, Provenza, Friedman, Cirigliano & Zieba, and Ray L. Miraldi, Lorain, for respondents.

HUNSIKER, Judge.

One opinion is written in this matter, which was orally argued as one case although such argument is to apply to each of the cases above designated and mumbered.

An original action in quo warranto was filed in this court, in case No. 1688, alleging that the respondent, Robert L. Hirbe, 'has usurped, and unlawfully holds and exercises the office of Chief of Police Department in the City of Lorain, Ohio * * *.' It is also alleged that the Civil Service Commission of that city gave notice and held a competitive examination for the office of Chief of Police, and various other positions in the police department; and, after grading such examinations, the Civil Service Commission unlawfully certified this respondent to a position in the police department. Further, it is stated that the Mayor of the city of Lorain unlawfully promoted this respondent to the office of Chief of Police.

The same general allegations are contained in each of the other petitions filed in the cases numbered above, excepting only that the designated position to which the Mayor of the city of Lorain made the appontment is a position in the police department other than that of Chief of Police.

The relator asks that Robert L. Hirbe, and the named respondent in each of the other five cases decided herewith, be required to answer 'by what warrant he claims to have, use, exercise and enjoy said office * * * .' A judgment of ouster is requested, effective as of the date of the promotional appointment. It is also requested that this respondent, Robert L, Hirbe, and the respondent named in each of the other cases, be returned to their former positions in the police department of the city of Lorain, Ohio.

In each of these original actions, except in case No. 1695, a demurrer has been filed on the grounds, that, first, 'it appears on the face of the petition that there is a defect of parties plaintiff,' and, second, 'that the petition does not state facts which show a cause of action.'

In case No. 1695, the respondent, Victor R. Bulzomi, demurred to the petition for the reasons that, first, 'the petition on its face does not state facts which state a cause of action,' and, second, 'the court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action.'

It is claimed that an action such as these original actions in quo warranto cannot be commenced by the prosecuting attorney except at the request of the Governor, the Supreme Court of Ohio, or the General Assembly, and that a failure to allege this prerequisite request makes the petitions herein fatally defective. In effect it is alleged that the prosecuting attorney has no right to bring these actions by the exercise of his own discretion. With this contention we do not agree. Two sections of the Revised Code provide for the bringing of actions in quo warranto; one is Section 2733.04, Revised Code, and the other is Section 2733.05, Revised Code. It is obvious that this action was properly filed under the provisions of the latter section, which gives wide discretion and latitude to the prosecuting attorney in the matters set out in Sections 2733.01 and 2733.02, Revised Code.

Does the petition state a cause of action?

The answer to this question hinges on whether in this proceeding a police officer-whether chief of police, lieutenant, or sergeant-occupies a public office. In other words, does the respondent in each of these cases now being determined, and including Robert L. Hirbe in this case, hold a public office within the terms of Section 2733.01, Revised Code, which reads as follows:

'A civil action in quo warranto may be brought in the name of the state:

'(A) Against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, civil or military, or a franchise, within this state, or an office in a corporation created by the authority of this state;

'(B) Against a public officer, civil or military, who does or suffers an act which, by law, works a forfeiture of his office;

'(C) Against an association of persons...