Freeman v. Ohio Elections Comm.
Citations
- 240 N.E.3d 381
- 2024 Ohio 1223
Syllabus
Judgment affirmed. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting appellants' contention that the Ohio Elections Commission refused to allow appellants' attorney to testify. The common pleas court did not err by rejecting appellants' due process violation claim, because the substance of the complaints alleged violations of R.C. 3517.10(A)(1) and (2) and 3517.13(B) and (C), and because appellants knew the charges against them and had a reasonable opportunity to defend against those charges at the hearings before the commission. Pursuant to R.C. 3517.992(A)(1), the commission properly imposed the fine against the candidate, Allen Freeman, for his committee's violation of R.C. 3517.13. Because appellants did not raise their vicarious liability argument during the administrative proceedings, they waived the argument. The $50,000 fine was authorized by law, and the commission properly imposed the fine against both Freeman and his committee.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that counsel’s strategic decisions were hard to attack
- holding that counsel’s strategic decisions were hard to attack
- holding that counsel’s strategic decisions were hard to attack
- holding that counsel’s strategic decisions were hard to attack
- holding that counsel’s strategic decisions were hard to attack
- holding that counsel’s strategic decisions were hard to attack
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Boggs
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.