State ex rel. Norman v. Viebranz
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The initial question for our consideration is whether appellant’s purported appointment to the unexpired term on the vocational board was effective. If it was, then the Windham board would have been powerless to reconsider it. “* * * The power of appointment, once exercised, is exhausted until a new vacancy occurs. ‘Where power has been given to appoint to an office and the same has been exercised, any subsequent appointment to the same office will be void unless the prior incumbent has been removed or the office has otherwise become vacant.’ ” State, ex rel. Gahl, v. Lutz (1937), 132 Ohio…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Humphrey's v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- State Ex Rel. Gahl v. LutzOhio Supreme Court · 1937
- Dewoody, Dir. of Law v. UnderwoodOhio Court of Appeals · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State ex rel. Cater v. City of North OlmstedOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Representative Donald Turner, Jr. and Senator Joseph Benning v. Governor Peter ShumlinSupreme Court of Vermont · 2017
- State ex rel. Cater v. N. OlmstedOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Wilson v. GulvasOhio Supreme Court · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.