Opinion

State ex rel. Waterman v. Franklin County Board of Elections

  • 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 53
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 23, 1964
Status
Published
On the bench
Gibson, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Place, Rieeith, Stead, Tart, Third, Younger, Zimmerman
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Per Curiam.

It appears that the address given by Foley is that of his divorced wife; and that, at the time the divorce was granted to his wife, about a year ago, he was enjoined from going into or near the home of his wife and from all visitation with his children. There is no evidence that he has established a voting residence elsewhere in the precinct.

The candidate, having been divorced from his wife and having been enjoined from going into or near the residence of his former wife, cannot properly say that he resides there-.

*54 The writ of prohibition is allowed on authority of State, ex rel. Higgins, v. Brown, Secy. of State, 170 Ohio St., 511 .

Writ allowed.

Tart, C. J., Zimmerman, Younger, O’Neill, G-rieeith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Younger, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Matthias, J.

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.