# State, Ex Rel. Durell v. Celebrezze

> Ohio Court of Appeals · March 27, 1979 · 63 Ohio App. 2d 125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3744661

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, Ex Rel. Durell, Et Al., Appellants, v. Celebrezze, Jr., Secy. of State, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 27, 1979
- **Citations:** 63 Ohio App. 2d 125; 17 Ohio Op. 3d 326; 409 N.E.2d 1044; 1979 Ohio App. LEXIS 8408
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moyer
- **Judges:** McCormac, Moyer, Whiteside
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3744661

## Opinion text

Moyer, J.,
concurring. While I agree that the purpose of R. C. 3519.01 has been served in a procedurally defective manner, it is important to emphasize that the law proposed in the second petition submitted to the Attorney General, pursuant to R. C. 3519.01, was substantially and substantively different from the proposed law in the first petition. It seems apparent that the “proposers” and the Attorney General looked upon the process required by R. C. 3519.01 as a continuing process in which changes may be made on a second petition without submitting even a copy of the names of the original 100 signators to the first petition. Our decision in this case should not prohibit such a process where modifications to either the law or the summary in a petition submitted to the Attorney General, pursuant to R. C. 3519.01, are not so substantial as to require 100 electors to petition for the modified or revised proposed law. There may be instances in which some changes can be made, or in which the proposers and the Attorney General’s office develop a summary that eliminates objections raised by the Attorney General, without violating the purpose for the requirement of 100 signators. Such a process does not violate the purpose of R. C. 3519.01, and it facilitates, rather than obstructs, the people’s constitutional right to initiate statutes.
For these reasons, I concur in the decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3744661. Public record. Not legal advice.