State ex rel. City of Toledo v. Lynch

Citations

• 87 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444

Syllabus

<p>Ride of constitutional law interpretation — That purpose clearly indicated — Court may not deny plain meaning of provision— Because natural consequences not intended — Second section of article four of constitution — No prohibition of original jurisdiction of supreme court.</p> <p>1. The rule of constitutional interpretation that, a purpose being clearly indicated, provisions should, so far as their terms will permit, be so construed as to further that purpose, will not justify a court in denying the plain meaning of an unambiguous provision because of the belief that its natural consequences could not have been intended.</p> <p>2. The prohibition in the second section of the fourth article of the constitution, effective January 1, 1913, that, “no law shall be passed or rule made whereby any person shall be prevented from invoking the original jurisdiction of the supreme court,” is effective to annul the requirement heretofore made of leave to file original petitions in the supreme court.</p>