State ex rel. Calvaruso v. Brown

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a writ of quo warranto sought by six Akron police captains who challenged Charles Brown’s service as acting chief of police and alleged de facto deputy chief. The court held that acting chief was a temporary assignment rather than a public office and that Brown was not a de facto deputy chief because he did not claim to hold that office. The court noted that quo warranto could not be used to challenge duties Brown performed as an assistant to the mayor.

Holdings

1. Quo warranto does not lie to remove a person from the position of acting chief of police because, under the evidence presented, that position is a temporary assignment during the chief's short absence and is not a public office.
2. Brown was not a de facto deputy chief for purposes of quo warranto because he did not hold or claim the office of deputy chief, even though he performed some duties commonly associated with that office.
3. The court could not determine in this quo warranto action what duties Brown may perform as an assistant to the mayor, and quo warranto could not oust him from that position merely because he performed duties resembling those of a deputy chief.
4. Oral argument was unnecessary because the briefs and evidence were sufficient to resolve the issues presented.

Questions Presented

1. Whether quo warranto may be used to oust a person from the position of acting chief of police when that position is a temporary assignment rather than a public office.
2. Whether Brown was a de facto deputy chief subject to ouster by quo warranto based on his performance of duties commonly performed by a deputy chief.
3. Whether quo warranto may be used to challenge the legality of duties performed by Brown in his actual position as an assistant to the mayor.
4. Whether oral argument was necessary in the original action.

Disposition

writ_denied