Legal Opinion

Domito v. Village of Maumee

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1942No. 29024PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.

In asking a reversal of the judgment below, appellant makes the principal contention that the appellee was barred from seeking injunctive relief under Section 12075, General Code, against the paving assessment, due notice of the improvement having been given before its commencement, together with the amount of the assessment to be levied, and no protest or complaint having been registered thereto. In support of this thesis reliance is placed on the •eases of Bashore v. Brown, Treas., 108 Ohio St., 18, 140 N. E., 489; City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Beck, 110 Ohio St., 82, 143 N. E., 661; Hammond,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Cuyahoga Falls v. BeckOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Hammond v. WinderOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Baxter v. Van HouterOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Wagner v. Messner, Aud.Ohio Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Glass v. DrydenOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Wolfe v. City of AvonOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Burton v. City of MiddletownOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Wenz v. Rossford Ohio Transportation Improvement DistrictDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2005
  5. Laskey v. HiltyOhio Court of Appeals · 1951

10 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