Case Name: The State, ex rel. Schultz et al., Appellants, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1976-12-15
Citations: 48 Ohio St. 2d 173
Docket Number: No. 76-500
Parties: The State, ex rel. Schultz et al., Appellants, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections et al., Appellees.
Judges: O’NEnÍL, C. J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, .CELEBREZZE, Stephenson and P. Brown, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Second Series
Volume: 48
Pages: 173–175

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Schultz et al., Appellants, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections et al., Appellees.
(No. 76-500
Decided December 15, 1976.)
Messrs. Cain $ Henn and Mr. Arthur L. Cain, for appellants. . .
..... Mr. John T. Com^em, prosecuting attorney,.Mr. John L. Dowling and Mr. Thomas P. Gill, for appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The referendum petition submitted by relators does not indicate anywhere that one of the paragraphs included in the title of the resolution, to be voted on was- hot adopted by the Olmsted Township Board of Trustees. It is apparent, therefore, that the: referendum petition does not fairly and accurately present the issues sought to be submitted to the electorate. Markus v. Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 197.
.Accordingly, the judgment of the .Court of Appeals, denying the writ of mandamus, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NEnÍL, C. J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, .CELEBREZZE, Stephenson and P. Brown, JJ., concur.
Stephenson, J.,' of the Fourth Appellate District, fitting for IV. Brown, j. . . • 'i •