Legal Opinion

Gerzeny v. Richfield Township

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1980No. 79-1494PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Per curiam

In addition to several enumerated “Permitted Uses” of property in an R-l, rural residential, district, the Richfield Township Zoning Resolution (hereinafter “resolution”) sets forth a list of “Conditionally Permitted Uses.” Use of R-l property for private parks and playgrounds does not constitute a permitted use under the resolution. The resolution does, however, authorize the board to issue conditional zoning certificates permitting use of R-l property for private parks where at least 100 acres of land can be dedicated to such use and where certain other standards can be met by the applicant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Synod of Ohio of United Lutheran Church in America v. JosephOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Rocky RiverOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1973
  5. Town of Richmond v. MurdockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Gillespie v. City of StowOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Families Against Reily/Morgan Sites v. Butler County Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Essroc Materials, Inc. v. Poland Township Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. Citizens Against Blasting on Our Miami v. Anderson Twp. Bd. of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Health Management, Inc. v. Union Township Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 1997

14 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