# State ex rel. Board of Township Trustees v. Brown

> Ohio Supreme Court · October 9, 1985 · 19 Ohio St. 3d 153

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759044

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Board of Township Trustees of Nile Township v. Brown, Secretary of State
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 9, 1985
- **Citations:** 19 Ohio St. 3d 153; 19 Ohio B. 436; 484 N.E.2d 152; 1985 Ohio LEXIS 525
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 0 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/6759044

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
R.C. 3501.05(J) imposes upon respondent the duty to “[ajpprove ballot language for any local question or issue * * *.”
R.C. 5705.25 sets forth the form of the ballot to be used in the submission of a proposed levy-to the voters and provides in relevant part:
“The form of the ballots cast at such election shall be:
“ ‘An additional tax for the benefit of (name of subdivision) * * * for the purpose of (purpose stated in the resolution) * * * at a rate not exceeding * * * mills for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to (rate expressed in dollars and cents) * * * for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for * * * (life of indebtedness or number of years the levy is to run) * *
<<* * *
“If the levy submitted is a proposal to * * * replace * * * an existing levy, the form of the ballot specified in this section may be changed by substituting for the words, ‘An additional’ at the beginning of the form; the words * * * ‘A replacement of a’ in the case of a proposal to replace an existing levy in the same amount; * *
*154 Relator argues that “[t]he Secretary of State is under a mandatory duty to approve ballot language designating a proposed tax levy as ‘a replacement’ tax when such language is specifically authorized by law.”
Although R.C. 5705.25 requires a replacement levy to be designated as such, relator has made no showing that its levy is, in fact, a replacement levy rather than a renewal levy. Similarly, relator has not demonstrated any prejudice from respondent’s action in designating the levy at issue a renewal levy.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. It will not lie unless relator has a clear right to the relief sought and clearly demonstrates its entitlement to the writ. State, ex rel. McGarvey, v. Zeigler (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 320, 321 [ 16 O.O.3d 363 ]. Relator has not met this burden.
Accordingly, the writ prayed for is denied. 1
Writ denied.
Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.
In view of our determination herein, it is unnecessary to rule on respondent’s motion to join a necessary party.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759044. Public record. Not legal advice.