State ex rel. Winterfeld v. Board of Elections of Lucas County
| Decision Date | 02 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 35637,35637 |
| Citation | 167 Ohio St. 531,5 O.O.2d 208,150 N.E.2d 420 |
| Parties | , 5 O.O.2d 208 The STATE ex rel. WINTERFELD et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF LUCAS COUNTY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Eastman, Stichter & Smith and Jamille G. Jamra, Toledo, for appellants.
Harry Friberg, prosecuting attorney, Charles T. Lawton, director of law, and Robert Dorrell, Toledo, for appellees.
The issues involved herein are such that this court can not, and will not, dispose of them without adequate consideration. The time between which this matter was argued and the primary election on May 6 obviously does not permit that consideration.
Under circumstances where the relators knew the necessity of determining the questions involved, prior to the time when the election is to be conducted, a delay of 32 days shows an unexplained dilatoriness in a situation which not only permitted but required their diligence. Particularly in view of the fact that absentee ballots have not only already been distributed but have unquestionably been marked, relators' failure to act sooner should deprive them of the relief sought herein.
Although it is unfortunate that the important questions raised by the appeal herein could not have been fully considered by this court, we are of the opinion that relators' rights have not been substantially curtailed. In the event of an election result unfavorable to the wishes of relators, they may yet avail themselves of other remedies.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections
...State ex rel. Bargahiser v. Board of Elections (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 129, 237 N.E.2d 133; State ex rel. Winterfeld v. Board of Elections of Lucas County (1958), 167 Ohio St. 531, 150 N.E.2d 420. We are persuaded that appellee Foster did not demonstrate the promptness required in prosecuting......
-
State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections
...128 Ohio St. 568, 1 O.O. 167, 192 N.E. 737 (writ of mandamus denied for same reason); State ex rel. Winterfeld v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections (1958), 167 Ohio St. 531, 5 O.O.2d 208, 150 N.E.2d 420 (dismissal of prohibition complaint to prevent placement of annexation issue on ballot where c......
-
Brink v. Franklin County Bd. of Elections
...lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff will deprive him of the relief he seeks. State, ex rel. Winterfeld, v. Bd. of Elections (1958), 167 Ohio St. 531, 150 N.E.2d 420, 5 O.O.2d 208; State, ex rel. Friedlander, v. Myers (1934), 128 Ohio St. 568, 192 N.E. 737, 1 O.O. 167; State, ex r......
-
State ex rel. Krupa v. Green
...grant the relief sought. State ex rel. Peirce v. Board of Elections, 168 Ohio St. 249, 153 N.E.2d 393; State ex rel. Winterfeld v. Board of Elections, 167 Ohio St. 531, 150 N.E.2d 420. It is the conclusion of this court that the Writ of Prohibition sought in this action be disallowed as tar......