# Stutzman v. Madison County Board of Elections

> Ohio Supreme Court · October 11, 2001 · 93 Ohio St. 3d 511

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783140

## Case

- **Full name:** Stutzman v. Madison County Board of Elections
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 11, 2001
- **Citations:** 93 Ohio St. 3d 511; 757 N.E.2d 297
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Moyer
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 21 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/6783140

## Opinion text

Moyer, C.J.,
dissenting. In concurring with the dissent authored by Justice Cook I write to express my concern that a majority opinion would so easily disregard the clear direction of the General Assembly in its amendment of R.C. 3599.36. The majority attempts to confine its holding to the confusion created by *519 the “mixed signals from the General Assembly.” One can only hope that it will be so confined. But, as is true in so many issues decided by a Supreme Court, the majority opinion produces implications far beyond the facts of this case.
As observed in Justice Cook’s dissent, boards of elections and others responsible for efficient and fair elections will not know when “substantial” compliance with a clear statutory mandate is sufficient or whether actual compliance is required. With one opinion, we have obfuscated a rule of statutory construction and principles upon which an important body of election law has been developed.
I respectfully dissent.
Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783140. Public record. Not legal advice.