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. O'Beirne v. Geauga County Board of Elections

Citations: 80 Ohio St. 3d 176; 685 N.E.2d 502Docket: No. 97-1411

Court: Ohio Supreme Court; September 29, 1997; Ohio; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to include a zoning referendum issue on the ballot, arguing that the board abused its discretion by rejecting their petition. The relators contended that their petition complied with the requirements of Ohio Revised Code 519.12(H), which mandates a fair and accurate summary of zoning amendments. However, the board found the petition's summary misleading, particularly in overstating the acreage affected by the zoning resolution and omitting a critical page of the resolution. The court emphasized the necessity for the petition summary to be clear and comprehensive, as misleading summaries could invalidate the petition. The relators' own evidence confirmed the board's findings, and under the invited-error doctrine, they could not contest errors based on their submissions. Additionally, the board's decision to consider evidence beyond the hearing was upheld, affirming its authority to reject petitions not meeting legal standards. Consequently, the court denied the relators' request for mandamus relief, ruling that the board's actions were within its discretion and authority.

Legal Issues Addressed

Accuracy and Clarity of Petition Summaries

Application: A petition summary must be accurate and unambiguous to prevent invalidation; misleading summaries can lead to rejection.

Reasoning: The petition summary must be accurate and unambiguous; misleading or incomplete summaries can invalidate the petition.

Board's Authority in Petition Certification

Application: The board can refuse to accept a petition if it violates legal requirements, regardless of protests.

Reasoning: The board acted within its authority in denying certification of the issue for the ballot, leading to the denial of relators' request for extraordinary relief in mandamus.

Invited-Error Doctrine in Petition Validation

Application: Relators cannot claim error based on evidence they provided, which supported the board's decision.

Reasoning: Under the invited-error doctrine, relators could not claim error based on evidence they provided.

Writ of Mandamus Standards

Application: A writ of mandamus may be granted if the board's decision reflects fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear statutory disregard.

Reasoning: Under Ohio law, a writ may be granted if the board's decision reflects fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear statutory disregard.

Zoning Referendum Petition Requirements under R.C. 519.12(H)

Application: The petition must provide a fair and accurate summary, including the full zoning resolution and map, to meet statutory requirements.

Reasoning: The relators argue their township zoning referendum petition meets the requirements of R.C. 519.12(H) by providing a fair and accurate summary, which includes the full zoning resolution and map.