Legal Opinion

Duncan v. Village of Middlefield

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 1986No. 85-350PublishedCited by 68 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

In Kisil v. Sandusky, supra, this court held in the syllabus:

“The standard for granting a variance which relates solely to area requirements should be a lesser standard than that applied to variances which relate to use. An application for an area variance need not establish unnecessary hardship; it is sufficient that the application show practical difficulties.”

*86In adopting the lesser, practical difficulties standard for area variances, we relied, in part, upon the analysis of the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Hoffman v. Harris (1966), 17 N.Y. 2d 138, 269 N.Y. Supp. 2d 119, 216 N.E.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Consolidated Management, Inc. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Wachsberger v. MichalisNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Hoffman v. HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1966

3Cited by68 opinions

  1. Grava v. Parkman TownshipOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Grava v. Parkman Twp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Boice v. Village of Ottawa HillsOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  4. In Re StadsvoldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
  5. Wolstein v. City of Pepper Pike City CouncilOhio Court of Appeals · 2004

63 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