Legal Opinion

Grava v. Parkman Township

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 1995No. 94-1406PublishedCited by 758 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

The issue certified to this court is whether, “[a]bsent a showing of changed circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to decisions of a *381board of zoning appeals denying a request for a variance, even when the subsequent action seeks a zoning certificate based on the property’s alleged status as a prior legal nonconforming use as provided for in a zoning'resolution.” We answer this query in the affirmative.

In Set Products, Inc. v. Bainbridge Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 260, 31 OBR 463, 510 N.E.2d 373, paragraph one of the syllabus, this court held that…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Norwood v. McDonaldOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Whitehead v. General Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Krahn v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. National Amusements, Inc. v. City of SpringdaleOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Rogers v. City of WhitehallOhio Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by758 opinions

  1. River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland ParkIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State v. SimpkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Grava v. Parkman Twp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. In Re: Daniel Fordu, Debtor. Harold A. Corzin v. Julie A. ForduCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  5. Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Department of CommerceOhio Supreme Court · 2007

753 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