Ohio Supreme Court, 1923

State ex rel. Vogt v. Donahey

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 28, 1923 · Allen, Day, Jones, Marshall, Matthias, Robinson, Wanamaker

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 844; 108 Ohio St. 440; 140 N.E. 609; 1923 Ohio LEXIS 203

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Bostwick (Ohio 1932)
Ohio Ass'n of Public School Employees v. City of Twinsburg (Ohio 1988)
City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations Board (Ohio 1989)
Walker v. Village of Belpre (Ohio 1960)
State ex rel. Canada v. Phillips (Ohio 1958)
In re Removal of Member of Council Joseph Coppola (Ohio 1951)
Commonwealth v. Rudman (Allegheny County Court of Quarter Sessions 1946)
McMillen v. Diehl, Judge. (Ohio 1934)
Fugate v. Weston (Va. 1931)
Christmann v. Coleman (Ohio 1927)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Heitzler (Ohio 1972)
State ex rel. Stokes v. Probate Court (Ohio 1970)
State Ex Rel. Heinig v. City of Milwaukie (Or. 1962)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

The governor, after hearing had before him, re| moved Vogt from the office of mayor -of M-assilloiT *845for Misconduct, non-feasance and gross neglect of duty in office- Writs of mandamus and quo war-. ranto were asked on relation of Vogt against the governor and K, Vogt’s successor, respectively. In denying the.writs, the Supreme Court held:

Attorneys — Joseph McGhee and P. E. Dempsey, Columbus, and Elson Weffer and Milton' Haines, MassijUon, for Vogt; C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and Edward E- Corn, Ironton, for Donahey; L- C- Wiggins, Massillon, for Kirchoffer-

Whijle the greater part of the evidence ini the record is hearsay and concerns misconduct in a former term and is therefore incompetent, there is- some evidence tending to prove that because of acts in his then term of office the mayor was guilty as charged. While the court would hesitate to convict on this evidence, its province extends only to the determination of whether there was any such evidence.

Wanamaker, Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ-, concur

Concurring Opinion

MARSHALL, C. J.

(concurring in the judgment only), held: The governor’s removal of a mayor from office, after hearing had on the charges, is not to judicial inquiry,

Dissenting Opinion

JONES, J.

(dissenting-, held: The great mass of the testimony concerned the mayor’s acts in a previous term and was incompetent. Without it the governor would not have removed the mayor.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.