Legal Opinion

Limpert v. Day

Cuyahoga County Probate Court

Decided June 28, 1966No. Nos. 664636, 664632, 664633, 664629, 664631, 664630, 664635 and 664634PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMerrick, P. J.

These cases are before this court on appeals perfected in accordance with provisions of Section 6117.09, Revised Code, granting right of appeal to this court from a spread of assessments by the Board of County Commissioners (hereafter referred to as Commissioners) in what has come to be known as the Westlake Sewer District. At the outset the court finds that the improvement is necessary and with the exception of one appellant is of benefit to the appellants and that the boundaries of the assessment districts are not fixed by any arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal action by the commissioners.

Th…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Domito v. Village of MaumeeOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Baxter v. Van HouterOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Di Palma v. WeinmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Rice v. Village of DanvilleOhio Court of Appeals · 1930

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Simmons v. City of MoscowIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Arvidson v. Board of County CommissionersAshtabula County Court of Common Pleas · 1971
  3. Simmons v. City of MoscowIdaho Supreme Court · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API