Legal Opinion

In Matter of the Exception v. Carlisle, 06ap120067 (4-11-2007)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 11, 2007No. 06AP120067Published

1Opinion of the Court

{¶ 1} This matter came before the Court for consideration of Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for lack of a final appealable order and Appellant's response in opposition.

{¶ 2} The case sub judice involves an appeal from an appraisal and recommended maintenance assessment for Appellant's real property located within the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District was established pursuant to R.C. 6101 (The"Conservancy Act"). The Conservancy Act of Ohio confers jurisdiction, power and authority on the Courts of Common Pleas of any county in Ohio to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Gross v. Board of Directors of Miami Conservancy Dist.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. ClowOhio Court of Appeals · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API