Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District v. Steinmetz
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtSherick, J.
On February 26,1936, the conservancy district filed with the Clerk of Courts of Tuscarawas county its appraisal record pursuant to Section 6828-30, General Code. Thereupon the clerk caused to be published due notice that all persons excepting to any part thereof were required to file their exceptions on or before the 23rd day of March, which date was the tenth day after the last publication of notice. On the 24th of March appellants filed their exceptions with the clerk. Thereafter on November 21 the Conservancy Court confirmed the appraisal record and ordered that all exceptions filed after…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gates v. . StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Gorski's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- In re State ex rel. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- Rutten v. Mayor of PatersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1906
3Cited by5 opinions
- Weidman v. HildebrandtOhio Supreme Court · 2024
- Margaret Creek Conservancy Dist. v. Albany Lions ClubOhio Court of Appeals · 1969
- Poll v. City of PlainfieldNew Jersey Tax Court · 1947
- Weidman v. HildebrandtOhio Supreme Court · 2024
- Weidman v. HildebrandtOhio Supreme Court · 2024