Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Halak v. Cebula

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1977No. 76-763PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Per curiam

Ordinarily, an action in quo warranto against a public official, inquiring by what, authority the individual holds his office, must be brought by the Attorney General or a prosecuting attorney. An exception is provided in R. C. 2733.06 which states:

“A person claiming to be entitled to a public office unlawfully held and exercised by another may bring an action therefor by himself or an attorney at law, upon giving security for costs.” . .

It has long been held and accepted that a private person cannot maintan an action in quo warranto except-under the authority of this statute, and “he must…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Lindley v. MacCabeesOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. State Ex Rel. Haff v. PaskOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  3. State Ex Rel. Smith v. NazorOhio Supreme Court · 1939

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hanley v. RobertsOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Stahl v. ShoemakerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State ex rel. Delph v. BarrOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State ex rel. Randles v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. The State Ex Rel. Flanagan v. Lucas, SheriffOhio Supreme Court · 2014

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API