Opinion

State Ex Rel. Schultz v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

  • 50 Ohio App. 2d 1
  • 4 Ohio Op. 3d 1
  • 361 N.E.2d 477
  • 1976 Ohio App. LEXIS 5837
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Mar 9, 1976
Status
Published
Author
Day
On the bench
Jackson, Day, Corrgian
Cited by
6 cases

The opinion

Day, J.,

concurring. In this case the Board of Elections had already acted on relators’ effort to get an issue on the ballot when the Mandamus petition was filed. That Board action effectively blocked any legally justifiable recourse to Mandamus.

However, the relator attempted to use the writ to force the Board to act in a particular way. Mandamus relief would invade a discretionary area which Mandamus cannot reach. Moreover, the granting of the writ in such circumstances would effect appellate review of a substantive and discretionary exercise of the Board’s powers and result in a violation of the fundamental proposition that Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal.

Accordingly, I agree with the action of the majority in denying the petition for Mandamus, but for different reasons.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.