State ex rel. Peirce v. Board of Elections of Stark County, 35796
| Decision Date | 08 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 35796,35796 |
| Citation | 6 O.O.2d 339,153 N.E.2d 393,168 Ohio St. 249 |
| Parties | , 6 O.O.2d 339 The STATE ex rel. PEIRCE v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF STARK COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Clyde H. Wright, Canton, for relator.
Norman J. Putman, Pros. Atty., Canton., for respondent Board of Elections of Stark County.
William Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and Hugh A. Sherer, Columbus, for respondent Ted W. Brown, Secretary of State.
Earle E. Wise, Canton, for respondent Anthony Flex.
The petition in this case was not filed until August 23, 1958, eight days after the final date on which candidates could voluntarily withdraw, which was August 15, 1958, i. e., 'prior to the eightieth day before the day of such general election' (Section 3513.30, Revised Code) and three days after the time during which vacancies could be filled, which was August 20, or 'not later than the seventy-sixth day before the day of such general election' (Section 3513.31, Revised Code).
Under such circumstances, the unexplained dilatoriness on the part of relator, where time was an important factor and required his diligence, deprives him of the relief he now seeks. In the event the election result is favorable to Flex, other remedies will be available to relator.
The demurrers to the petition are sustained, and the writ of prohibition is denied. State ex rel. Winterfeld v. Board of Elections of Lucas County, 167 Ohio St. 531, 150 N.E.2d 420.
Writ denied.
Although this case can be concluded on the ground of laches, it seems futile to deny the writ of prohibition and allow the name of the candidate to remain on the ballot when it is conceded that he will not have been admitted to practice as an attorney at law in this state for a period of at least six years immediately preceding the commencement of the term, as provided by Section 2301.01, Revised Code.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2002-1700.
...Schenck v. Shattuck (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 272, 1 OBR 382, 439 N.E.2d 891. For example, in State ex rel. Peirce v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections (1958), 168 Ohio St. 249, 250, 6 O.O.2d 339, 153 N.E.2d 393, we denied a writ of prohibition to prevent the candidacy of a person for common pleas cou......
-
State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections
...issue on ballot where complaint filed less than three weeks before election); and State ex rel. Peirce v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections (1958), 168 Ohio St. 249, 6 O.O.2d 339, 153 N.E.2d 393 (writ of prohibition to remove nominee from ballot denied because complaint filed after period for rep......
-
Brink v. Franklin County Bd. of Elections
...ex rel. Welden, v. Bd. of Elections (1964), 176 Ohio St. 92, 197 N.E.2d 802, 26 O.O.2d 438; State, ex rel. Peirce, v. Bd. of Elections (1958), 168 Ohio St. 249, 153 N.E.2d 393, 6 O.O.2d 339; State, ex rel. Bargahiser, v. Bd. of Elections (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 129, 237 N.E.2d 133, 43 O.O.2d ......
-
State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections
...absentee ballots when complaints were filed thirty-three days after protests were decided); State ex rel. Peirce v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections (1958), 168 Ohio St. 249, 6 O.O.2d 339, 153 N.E.2d 393 (writ of prohibition to remove nominee from ballot denied because complaint filed after peri......