Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Tietje v. Collett

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1941No. 28524PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBettman, J.

Both sides in this litigation agree that the sole question at issue is whether the referendum petition here involved is valid. If it is valid, the offering of the bonds by the respondents to the officials in charge of the village sinking fund must await the outcome of the submission of the ordinance to a vote of the people of Ada. If, however, the referendum petition is invalid, the demurrer to the answer must be sustained and, the essential facts of the relator’s petition being admitted by the answer, the writ of mandamus must issue.

Section 5, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, relating…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Council of the Village of MilanOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  2. State Ex Rel. Portmann v. City Council of MassillonOhio Supreme Court · 1938

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. City of Middletown v. City Commission of MiddletownOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  2. State ex rel. Janik v. Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  3. State ex rel. Layshock v. MooreheadOhio Court of Appeals · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API