descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections

Citations: 74 Ohio St. 3d 1520; 660 N.E.2d 740; 1996 Ohio LEXIS 3796Docket: 96-369

Court: Ohio Supreme Court; February 12, 1996; Ohio; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

A writ of prohibition was granted by the court regarding an expedited election matter, halting the respondent from conducting any hearings or further proceedings related to protests against the candidacies of the relators until the case is resolved. The court mandated that all parties submit their merit briefs by February 20, 1996, with no extensions allowed. Judges Douglas and Sweeney concurred with the order and invited the Secretary of State to intervene, while Judge Pfeifer concurred in part, stating he would not stay the hearing.

Legal Issues Addressed

Issuance of Writ of Prohibition

Application: The court issued a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent from conducting any hearings related to the candidacies of the relators until the resolution of the case.

Reasoning: A writ of prohibition was granted by the court regarding an expedited election matter, halting the respondent from conducting any hearings or further proceedings related to protests against the candidacies of the relators until the case is resolved.

Judicial Concurrence and Intervention

Application: Judges Douglas and Sweeney agreed with the order to grant the writ of prohibition and extended an invitation to the Secretary of State to intervene in the matter.

Reasoning: Judges Douglas and Sweeney concurred with the order and invited the Secretary of State to intervene.

Partial Concurrence by Judge

Application: Judge Pfeifer agreed with the decision in part but expressed that he would not support staying the hearing.

Reasoning: Judge Pfeifer concurred in part, stating he would not stay the hearing.

Submission of Merit Briefs

Application: The court ordered that all parties involved in the case must submit their merit briefs by a specified date, with no extensions permitted.

Reasoning: The court mandated that all parties submit their merit briefs by February 20, 1996, with no extensions allowed.