Paschal v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- State ex rel. Valore v. Summit County Board of Elections (Ohio 1999)
- State ex rel. Fleming v. Fox (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2019)
- Webb v. Lucas County Board of Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
- State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow County Board of Elections (Ohio 2000)
- State ex rel. Committee for the Referendum of Ordinance No. 3543-00 v. White (Ohio 2000)
- State ex rel. Crossman Communities of Ohio, Inc. v. Greene County Board of Elections (Ohio 1999)
- State ex rel. Valore v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio 1999)
- State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Licking County Board of Elections (Ohio 1997)
- State ex rel. Huebner v. West Jefferson Village Council (Ohio 1995)
- State ex rel. Pinkston v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2023)
- State ex rel. Hasselbach v. Sandusky Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2019)
- State ex rel. Brinda v. Lorain County Board of Elections (Ohio 2007)
- State ex rel. Citizen Action for a Livable Montgomery v. Hamilton County Board of Elections (Ohio 2007)
- State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony (Ohio 2005)
- State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Ordinance No. 3543-00 v. White (Ohio 2000)
- State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio 2000)
- State ex rel. Crossman Communities of Ohio, Inc. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Election (Ohio 1999)
- State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio 1997)
- State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council (Ohio 1996)
- Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio 1995)
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
Relators argue that only the charter governs submission of ordinances proposed by initiative petition in the village under R.C. 731.41.
Nevertheless, we need not reach these substantive issues. We note that relators delayed nine days before filing their complaint in this case. We have stated that extreme diligence and the promptest of actions are required in election cases. State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 45, 49, 600 N.E.2d 656, 659. We do not find that relators employed the requisite diligence required in this ease. Accordingly, the writ is denied.
Writ denied.
. R.C. 731.41 states: “Sections 731.28 to 731.41, inclusive, of the Revised Code [initiative and referendum procedures] do not apply to any municipal corporation which adopts its own charter containing an initiative and referendum provision for its own ordinances and other legislative measures.”
. Article I of the charter states in part: “The powers of this Municipality may also be exercised as provided by the general law of Ohio unless the Charter or enactments of Council according to the Charter require otherwise.”
. R.C. 731.28 states in part: “The board [of elections] shall submit such proposed ordinance or measure for the approval or rejection of the electors of the municipal corporation at the next succeeding general election, occurring subsequent to seventy-five days after the auditor or clerk certifies the sufficiency and validity of the initiative petition to the board of elections.”
. R.C. 3501.02(F) states: “Any question or issue, except a candidacy, to be voted upon at an election shall be certified, for placement on the ballot, not less than seventy-five days before the day of the election.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.