State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections, 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 2000-Ohio-
295.]

THE STATE EX REL. LANDIS v. MORROW COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL.
[Cite as State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d
187.]
Elections -- Candidate for county sheriff -- R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a) requires
supervisory experience as peace officer at rank of corporal or above --
Previous expedited election case dismissed for want of prosecution --
Subsequent action barred by res judicata and lache -- S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9)
and X(11).
(No. 00-288 -- Submitted February 16, 2000 -- Decided February 18, 2000.)
IN MANDAMUS.

On January 3, 2000, relator, Rick J. Landis, filed his declaration of
candidacy and nominating petition to become the sole Democratic Party candidate
for the office of Sheriff of Morrow County, Ohio. On January 14, 2000, following
an investigation into Landis's qualifications to be a candidate for sheriff, the
director of respondent Morrow County Board of Elections ("board") orally
informed Landis that his petition had been rejected. On January 18, 2000, the
board gave Landis written reasons for the rejection of his candidacy. Later that
same day, at a hearing, the board advised Landis that his employment as a
probation officer, bailiff, and chief of court security did not satisfy the R.C.

311.01(B)(9)(a) requirement of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the
rank of corporal or above. The next day, Landis received a resolution from the
board rejecting his petition.

On January 25, 2000, Landis filed a complaint in this court (case No. 00-
157) for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents--the board and its members
and Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell--to certify him as the Democratic
candidate for Morrow County Sheriff and to place his name on the March 7, 2000
primary election ballot. Landis also set forth four additional claims for declaratory
relief. On February 1, respondents filed answers to the complaint in case No. 00-
157. Since Landis had filed an action involving an expedited election matter less
than ninety days prior to the election, he was required to file his evidence and brief
by February 4. S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). When Landis failed to do so, we dismissed case
No. 00-157 for want of prosecution on February 7 pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11).

On February 9, Landis refiled his action under case No. 00-288. In this
second action, Landis requests the same relief that he requested in case No. 00-
157, including a writ of mandamus to order the board to certify him as the
Democratic candidate for sheriff and cause his name to be placed on the March 7
primary election ballot. Relator also claims that, in the alternative, he is entitled to
a writ of mandamus to compel certification of his candidacy for the November 7,
2000 general election.

2

This cause is before the court for a consideration of whether Landis can
refile his expedited election case after his previous expedited election case was
dismissed for want of prosecution.
__________________

James R. Kingsley, for relator.

Gregory A. Perry, Morrow County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents
Morrow County Board of Elections and its members.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Arthur J. Marziale, Jr. and David
S. Timms, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State.
__________________

Per Curiam. We deny the writ for the following reasons.
First,
res judicata bars Landis's present action. "A valid, final judgment
rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising
out of the transaction * * * that was the subject matter of the previous action."
Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus.
Further, as we held in State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Licking Cty. Bd. of
Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 182, 184-186, 685 N.E.2d 507, 509-510, in the
absence of any language in the entry to the contrary, a dismissal for want of
prosecution of an expedited election matter under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) and
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11) operates as an adjudication on the merits that bars the refiling

3

of a second expedited election matter " `based upon any claim arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.' "1 Id.,
80 Ohio St.3d at 185, 685 N.E.2d at 510, quoting Grava, syllabus. These findings
additionally bar Landis's alternative claim that he should be placed on the general
election ballot in the November 2000 general election because this claim arises
from the same occurrence, i.e., the board's January 2000 rejection of his candidacy
for sheriff, which was the subject matter of his previously filed case.

As we observed in SuperAmerica, "a contrary holding would circumvent
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(C) (`No pleading, memorandum, brief, or other document
may be filed after the filing deadlines imposed by these rules * * * ') by permitting
parties to refile and proceed with their original actions following dismissal for
want of prosecution." Id., 80 Ohio St.3d at 186, 685 N.E.2d at 510. Thus, based
on SuperAmerica, Landis should have been on additional notice that his failure to
follow the specific requirements for S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) would result in dismissal
with prejudice of his expedited election case.

Second, Landis's current action is barred by laches. "Extreme diligence and
promptness are required in election matters." (Citations omitted.) State ex rel. The
Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 107, 113, 712
N.E.2d 696, 701. The manifest purpose of S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) is to "incorporate an
expedited schedule for the presentation of evidence and briefs in election cases

4

filed in that time period to assist the court in resolving such cases promptly."
SuperAmerica, 80 Ohio St.3d at 187, 685 N.E.2d at 511; Staff Commentary to
S.Ct.Prac.R. X. This purpose is contravened when relators fail to comply with the
expedited briefing and evidence schedule set forth in the rule and then attempt to
file a second expedited election case after the first action has been dismissed for
want of prosecution. If Landis's second action were to be fully briefed, the time
for printing absentee ballots would have passed, see R.C. 3509.01, and the primary
election would be just a couple of weeks away.

In fact, we have held that a delay as brief as nine days can preclude our
consideration of the merits of an expedited election case. Paschal v. Cuyahoga
Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 656 N.E.2d 1276. Here, twenty-
two days elapsed from the date that Landis initially received written reasons from
the board rejecting his petition (January 18, 2000) to the time that he filed his
second complaint (February 9, 2000). In sum, by ignoring our Rules of Practice
and precedent, Landis has not acted with the extreme diligence and promptness
required in election cases.

Based on the foregoing, because Landis's claims are barred by res judicata
and laches, we deny the writ.
Writ denied.

5

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.

PFEIFER, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.
FOOTNOTE:

1.
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11) provides the requisite notice of dismissal for a
relator's failure to file evidence and a merit brief. SuperAmerica, 80 Ohio St.3d at
185, 685 N.E.2d at 510.
__________________

DOUGLAS, J., concurring in judgment only. I concur in the judgment of
the majority to deny the requested writ. However, I do not agree with the
majority's reasons for denying the writ. Once again, the majority, erroneously I
believe, denies a requested writ on the basis of res judicata and laches. I believe
that the writ should be denied on the basis that relator clearly does not qualify for
the office he seeks given the qualification criteria set forth in R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a).
I continue to adhere to my dissent in State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Licking
Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 182, 188, 685 N.E.2d 507, 512, which
deals, generally, with both issues of res judicata and laches in like original actions.

6