Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hinkle v. Franklin County Board of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 1991No. 91-1845PublishedCited by 62 opinions

1Per curiam

The principal issue presented in this case is: Does Am.Sub. H.B. No. 200 violate Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution in that the bill contains more than one subject? For reasons that follow, we hold that Am.Sub.H.B. No. 200, as it was enacted, is unconstitutional under Section 15(D), Article II, and, therefore, that the board of elections cannot invalidate this local option petition pursuant to Section 7 of that bill. Having held this, we need not also decide whether Section 7 is invalid for the other reason Hinkle asserts — that it violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hoover v. Board of County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State ex rel. Dix v. CelesteOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. ComTech Systems, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. In Re Highland Holiday SubdivisionOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
  5. State ex rel. Beck v. CaseyOhio Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Heggs v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
  3. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Commonwealth v. NeimanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013

57 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