Legal Opinion

Mayfield-Dorsh, Inc. v. City of South Euclid

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1981No. 80-1718PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Per curiam

It is a fundamental principle of Ohio zoning law that appellees, the parties challenging the validity of a zoning classification, have, at all stages of this litigation, the burden of demonstrating the unconstitutionality or unreasonableness of the zoning code. Leslie v. Toledo (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 488, 489; Brown v. Cleveland (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 93, 95; Hilton v. Toledo (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 394, 396. See, generally, Willott v. Beachwood (1964), 175 Ohio St. 557. Zoning ordinances which are enacted pursuant to a municipality’s police powers are presumed valid until the contrary is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Rocky RiverOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Brown v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Hilton v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Union Oil Co. v. City of WorthingtonOhio Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Karches v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Moore v. City of MiddletownOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Gerijo, Inc. v. City of FairfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Village of Hudson v. Albrecht, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Goldberg Companies, Inc. v. Council of the City of Richmond HeightsOhio Supreme Court · 1998

24 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