Opinion

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

  • 103 Ohio St. 3d 477
  • 817 N.E.2d 1
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 19, 2004
Status
Published
Author
Pfeifer
On the bench
Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Only, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
13 cases

stating that court need not consider hearsay in resolving summary judgment motions

How later courts described this case

  • stating that court need not consider hearsay in resolving summary judgment motions

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Pfeifer, J.,

concurring.

{¶ 23} I concur with the judgment of the majority that Miller failed to establish that the board’s decision resulted from fraud or corruption or that the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law in striking his claimed middle name of “Russo” from the ballot.

{¶24} The majority’s discussion of laches is superfluous and deflects the spotlight from the true issue in this case, the relator’s outrageous behavior. Miller’s attempted name change was an affront to the bar and to the electorate. I would award attorney fees to respondent.

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.