# State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)

> Ohio Supreme Court · October 2, 2015 · 145 Ohio St. 3d 220

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815671

## Case

- **Full name:** State Ex Rel. Burroughs v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 2, 2015
- **Citations:** 145 Ohio St. 3d 220; 48 N.E.3d 515; 2015 Ohio 4122
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by O'Donnell
- **Judges:** Per Curiam Lanzinger, Pfeifer, Kennedy, French, O'Neill, O'Donnell, O'Connor
- **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/9815671

## Opinion text

O’Donnell, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 4} Respectfully, I dissent.
{¶ 5} I would deny the writ of mandamus in this case, because in my view, State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 346 , 2015-Ohio-4097 , 43 N.E.3d 406 , is not dispositive. This is not a case in which the board of elections disregarded uncontroverted evidence as to the authenticity of a signature on a petition.
{¶ 6} Here, Burroughs did not present uncontroverted evidence of the authenticity of the four signatures on his petitions to the board at the time it rejected them, and he has never presented such evidence to it. Rather, for the first time, in this court, he asserts such evidence. Therefore, the board did not abuse its discretion by disregarding evidence of the authenticity of the electors’ signatures on the petitions.
{¶ 7} Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815671. Public record. Not legal advice.