THOMASG.EAGLECO.,L.P.A.
3386RState
Rt
123
Lebanon,Ohio45036Phone(937)743-2545Fax(937)704-9&26
INTHESUPRElVIECOURTOFOIDOSUPREMECT.CASENO.11-1414TATEOFOIDO,exreiDENNIS
J.
VARNAU,
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
CourtofAppealsCaseNo.CA2009-02-10Plaintiff/Appellee,vs.OnAppealfromtheBrownCountyCourtofAppeals,TwelfthAppellateDistrictDWAYNEWENNINGER,Defendant!Appellant.MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONOFAPPELLANTSTATEOFOHIOexreiDENNIS
J.
VARNAUThomasG.Eagle(0034492)(COUNSELOFRECORD)THOMASG.EAGLECO.,L.P.A.3386N.StateRt.123Lebanon,Ohio45036Phone:(937)743-2545Fax:(937)704-9826Email:eaglelawoffice@cs.comCOUNSELFORAPPELLANT,STATEOFOHIOexrelDENNISJ.VARNAUPatrickL.Gregory(#0001147)717W.PlaneBethel,Ohio45106Phone:(513)734-0950Fax(513)734-0958COUNSELFORAPPELLEE,DWAYNEWENNINGER
r---r5i~~~--_
£5DfbfgID)]
FEB062012
CLERK
OF
COURT
SUPREME
COURT
OF
OHIO
GaryA.Rosenhoffer(#0003276)302E.MainSt.Batavia,Ohio45103Phone:(513)732-0300Fax(513)732-0648COUNSELFORAPPELLEE,DWAYNEWENNINGER
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFOIDOSTATEOFOHIO,exreI,DENNIS
J.
VARNAU,Relator-Appellant,-vs-DWAYNEWENNINGER,Respondent-Appellee.
)))
)
)
)
)
)
))
SUPREMECT.CASENO.2011-1414
On
AppealfromtheTwelfthDistrictCourtofAppeals,BrownCountyOhioCourtofAppealsCaseNo.CA2009-02-10APPELLANT'SMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONNowcomestheAppellant,Dennis
1.
Varnau,
by
andthroughcounsel,pursuanttoS.Ct.Prac.
R.
11.2(B)(4),andmovesthisCourttoreconsideritsJanuary26,2012,Decision.S.Ct.Prac.
R.
11.2allows,orrequires,theCourtto"correctdecisionswhich,uponreflection,aredeemedtohavebeenmadeinerror.
II
BuckeyeCommunityHopeFound
v.
CuyahogaFalls,
82OhioSt.3d539,541,697N.E.2d181(1998),quoting
StateexreoHuebner
v.
WJeffersonVillageCouncil,
75OhioSt.3d381,383,662N.E.2d339(1995);
Stateexrei.Shemo
v.
MayfieldHts.,
96OhioSt.3d379,2002-0hio-4905,775N.E.2d493,~5.Itisalsoappropriatetograntamotionforreconsiderationthatraisesanissuethatwaseither
notconsideredatall,
or
notfullyconsidered,
whenitshouldhavebeen.
Mathews
v.
Mathews,5
OhioApp.3d140,143,450N.E.2d278(1981).Suchisthecasehere,inthefollowingrespects,andtheCourtisrespectfullyrequestedtoreconsiderthatDecision;andgranttheAppellant'srequestedrelief,orinthealternativesetthismatterfororalargumentsotheseimportantdistinctionsfromanotherwiserun-of-the-mill
quowarranto
actioncanbeaddressed.
I.Introduction
TheCourtdeterminedthattheRelatorcouldnotproceedonhis
quowarranto
Petitionduetolaches,referencingopportunities
in
Respondent'spriortermsofofficeforthechallenge.ThefactsinthisRecorddonotsupportthefindingsuponwhichtheCourt'sDecisionisbased:thatAppellanthadanysuchearlieropportunity.Further,theCourtpresentedthatthechallengesinthisPetitionwereonlytoRespondent'slackofqualificationsin
prior
termsofoffice.Butitisonlythefactthatthosedefectsoccurred
in
priorterms,thatbyStatutemakehim
currentlyineligible
toholdthe
current
term.Thechallengeissimilartoanyotherofficerequiredtohavealength-of-servicerequirement(likeajudge,requiredtobeapracticinglawyerforsomeminimumperiodoftime;oracoroner,beingrequiredtobeaphysicianforaminimumperiodoftime),andafterholdingtheoffice,itbeingdeterminedtheydidnotsatisfythelength-of-servicerequirementbythepriorterm.That
requirementshouldnotbewaivedretroactively.
TheDecisionalsodeprivesAppellant(andbyimplication,anycitizeninBrownCounty)of
anyremedyatall
forhavinganunqualifiedsheriffinoffice,
in
that
twopriorcourts
deniedRelatorapriorremedy
(mandamus
toaboardofelections,tocompelahearingonhisearlierprotestofRespondent'scandidacy),expresslybasedon
theavailabilityofthisquowarranto
remedy,whichthisCourtsayshedidn'thave,either.TheCourtmaynothaveconsideredthattheDecisioninthiscaseestablishesthatastatutorilyunqualifiedcandidatecankeepthatoffice,aslongastheykeeptheirlackofqualificationssecret,orunopposed,longenough.
II.LawandArgumentA.Lachesdoesnotpreventaremedyforinactionbeforetherewasarighttoact.
TheDecisionwasbasedonspecificargumentsnotraised(atleastnotinthesamemanner)byanypartyorthepriorcourt.AuthoritiesandargumentsopposingtheCourt'sreasoninginthoseregardsthereforewerenotbriefedsubstantially,argumentwasnotheldto
2
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
State ex rel Varnau v Wenninger, Ohio Sup Ct 11-1414, (6 Feb 2012), Mot for Reconsideration, (Quo Warranto)
State ex rel Varnau v Wenninger, Ohio Sup Ct 11-1414, (6 Feb 2012), Mot for Reconsideration, (Quo Warranto)
55
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
