State ex rel. Jennewine v. Puffenberger, 2025 Ohio 3041

A vacancy arose on the Sylvania Township Board of Trustees after a trustee’s resignation on July 1, 2024.
Under Ohio law (R.C. 503.24), the remaining trustees had 30 days to fill the vacancy but did not act, shifting appointment authority to the “committee of five” from the last nominating petition.
Three members of the committee attended the relevant meeting; two voted to appoint Jill Johnson, one abstained, and the two signers formalized her appointment. Johnson took the oath and has served as trustee since.
John Jennewine, an elected trustee, challenged the validity of Johnson’s appointment, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Probate Judge Puffenberger to make the appointment.
Jennewine also sought writs of quo warranto and procedendo but, after some claims and parties were dismissed, only the mandamus claim against Judge Puffenberger proceeded.
The Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether mandamus could be used to force a new appointment while Johnson occupied the office—at least as a de facto officer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can mandamus compel Judge to appoint trustee?	Judge must appoint because the committee didn't comply with R.C.503.24 and vacancy remains.	No vacancy exists; appointment made; only quo warranto can remove Johnson.	No clear legal right or duty exists; mandamus cannot compel appointment.
Effect of committee's allegedly invalid action	Committee did not properly appoint; so position remains vacant.	Johnson is at least a de facto officer; office not vacant.	Johnson is de facto officer; office not vacant; remedy is quo warranto.
Need for vacancy for mandamus to issue	Mandamus not contingent on vacancy if statutory process wasn't followed.	Vacancy is prerequisite for mandamus; no vacancy here.	Vacancy required for mandamus; no vacancy exists so writ denied.
Proper remedy for removing a de facto officer	Mandamus sufficient; does not seek to expel Johnson directly.	Only quo warranto action is available to challenge right to office.	Quo warranto is exclusive remedy; mandamus inappropriate here.

State ex rel. Purola v. Cable, 48 Ohio St.2d 239 (de facto officer doctrine—acts remain valid until ousted by quo warranto)
State ex rel. Democratic Exec. Comm. v. Brown, 39 Ohio St.2d 157 (mandamus to compel an appointing authority only appropriate if vacancy exists)
State ex rel. Habe v. S. Euclid, 56 Ohio St.3d 117 (mandamus cannot compel appointment when no vacancy exists)