Legal Opinion

Columbus City School District Board of Education v. Zaino

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 2001No. 99-1740PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Per curiam

In 1986, the city of Columbus passed Ordinance 1891-86 authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with appellant, 1-670 Corridor Development Corporation (“1-670”), designating 1-670 “an agency and instrumentality for economic development including land use planning and marketing strategy,” for a designated area. 1-670 is a private, not-for-profit corporation under R.C. Chapter 1702, and a 501(c)(3) corporation under the Internal Revenue Code.

*4971-670 and the city entered into a loan agreement in 1990 whereby the city loaned 1-670 money to purchase property for a mixed-use business park.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Master Consolidated Corp. v. BancOhio National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Ace Steel Baling, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  3. SFZ Transportation, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Stevens v. FrostSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
  5. Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Satullo v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Board of Education v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Global Knowledge Training, L.L.C. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Cincinnati Community Kollel v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2013

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API