Legal Opinion · Dissent

State ex rel. Jurcisin v. Cotner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1984No. 84-441Published

1DissentLocher, J.

I must dissent from the position taken by the majority for the reason that there has been no showing that council delayed to intentionally avoid the May 8, 1984 election and therefore T would deny the writ.

The charter, rather than imposing a specific time limit for enacting the ordinance in question, requires only that it be accomplished “forthwith” after the passage of ten days and two regular council meetings. Numerous jurisdictions have adopted a definition of “forthwith” which recognizes that *174whatever must occur “forthwith” must occur within a reasonable time — not immediately, as the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. GlenNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Atlantic National Bank v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1948
  3. Omohundro v. PalmerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1932
  4. Jenkins v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
  5. Ervin v. BelandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968

3 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