Opinion

State ex rel. Lynch v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

  • 80 Ohio St. 3d 341
  • 686 N.E.2d 498
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 3, 1997
Status
Published
Author
Resnick
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
10 cases

The opinion

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

concurring separately. I agree that the writ of mandamus should be denied. Specifically, I join the first three reasons listed by the majority for denying the writ: (1) that relator’s protest was untimely, (2) that the board lacked authority to sua sponte invalidate Corpus’s candidacy under R.C. 3501.39(A)(3), and (3) that if the September 23 letter was not a protest, then the mandamus claim is barred. Given those procedural deficiencies in relator’s protest, which are sufficient in and of themselves to support denial of the writ, I find it unnecessary to consider the specifics of Westlake’s Charter. Accordingly, I do not join in the majority’s discussion of the fourth reason for denying the writ.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

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.