Title: OÂ’Farrell v. Landis

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
O’Farrell v. Landis, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-197.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-197 
O’FARRELL v. LANDIS ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as O’Farrell v. Landis, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-197.] 
Election contests—R.C. Chapter 3515—Motion to dismiss filed by county board 
of elections denied. 
(No. 2012-2151—Submitted January 24, 2013—Decided January 25, 2013.) 
ON MOTION TO DISMISS. 
__________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J., in Chambers. 
{¶ 1} This cause originated in this court on the filing of an election-
contest petition pursuant to R.C. 3515.08(B) by the contestor, Joshua O’Farrell.  
The election contest is in regard to the office of state representative for the 98th 
House District for the state of Ohio, held in the November 6, 2012 general 
election. O’Farrell, a Democrat, and contestee Al Landis, a Republican, were the 
candidates.  In addition to the contestee, O’Farrell named the boards of elections 
of Tuscarawas and Holmes counties as respondents in the case. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Respondent Holmes County Board of Elections moves to be 
dismissed as a party.  The motion is denied for the following reasons. 
{¶ 3} The board argues that because R.C. 3515.09 does not provide that 
a board of election is to be named as a party in an election contest, O’Farrell has 
“failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” against it. 
{¶ 4} While the statute does define the contestor and the contestee in an 
elections contest, it does not explicitly state that the contestee is to be the only 
opposing party or prohibit the contestor from including other entities as parties. 
{¶ 5} Moreover, R.C. 3515.09 also states that if the judgment is rendered 
against the contestee, “the county shall pay the costs as other election expenses 
are paid.”  Thus, while it does not explicitly include or exclude a county board of 
elections as a party, the statute does make the county potentially liable for costs in 
an election contest. Therefore the board of elections—presumably the subdivision 
of Holmes County responsible for costs “as other election expenses are paid”—is 
an entity with a real interest in the litigation. 
{¶ 6} The board is directly involved in this contested election, and if 
O’Farrell prevails, Holmes County may have to bear some of the costs of the 
contest. The case may therefore proceed with the board as a respondent. 
Motion denied. 
__________________ 
 
 McTigue & McGinnis, L.L.C., Donald McTigue, J. Corey Colombo, and 
Mark A. McGinnis, for contestor. 
 
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., W. Stuart Dornette, Donald C. Brey, 
and Beth A. Bryan, for contestee. 
Ryan Styer, Tuscarawas County Prosecuting Attorney; and Crabbe, Brown 
& James, L.L.P., and Andy Douglas, Special Counsel, for respondent Tuscarawas 
County Board of Elections. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
Steve Knowling, Holmes County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent 
Holmes County Board of Elections. 
______________________