State ex rel. Freeman v. HayesState ex rel. Freeman v. Hayes
This court has consistently held that “[i]n order for a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (
We, likewise, find no error in the dismissal of appellant’s complaint in quo warranto. Assuming, arguendo, that appellee is a “public officer” within the meaning of R. C. 2733.01, and, that the office of superintendent is a “public office” within the meaning of R. C. 2733.06, appellant has shown no claim of entitlement to such office. Absent such a claim, appellant cannot, as a private person, maintain an action in quo warranto. See State, ex rel. Silvey, v. Miami Conservancy District Co. (1919),
For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Court of Appeals are hereby affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.