Difference between revisions of "Ohio standing"

From Phyllis Schlafly Eagles
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with ":Ordinarily a person is not authorized to attack the constitutionality of a statute, where his private rights have suffered no interference or impairment, but as a matter of p...")
(No difference)

Revision as of 13:31, 1 January 2017

Ordinarily a person is not authorized to attack the constitutionality of a statute, where his private rights have suffered no interference or impairment, but as a matter of public policy a citizen does have such an interest in his government as to give him capacity to maintain a proper action to enforce the performance of a public duty affecting himself and citizens generally."
The court explained that "[w]here a public right, as distinguished from a purely private right, is involved, a citizen need not show any special interest therein, but he may maintain a proper action predicated on his citizenship relation to such public right. This doctrine has been steadily adhered to by this court over the years." Id. at 150-151, 54 O.O. at 393, 122 N.E.2d at 107.

State ex rel. OATLA v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (1999).