Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Fejes v. City of Akron

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1966No. 39567PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.

It is to be noted that the present action was brought against the city of Akron as the sole respondent. It has long been established in this state that in the construction, improvement and maintenance of streets and highways a municipality is engaged in a governmental function, and that there is no liability in such connection, unless liability is expressly imposed by statute. City of Wooster v. Arhenz, 116 Ohio St. 281, 156 N. E. 210, 52 A. L. R. 518; Davis v. Charles Shutrump & Sons Co., 140 Ohio St. 89, 42 N. E. 2d 663; Taylor v. City of Cincinnati, 143 Ohio St. 426, 447, 55 N. E. 2d 724,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Transportation Co. v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Bedford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  4. Thornburg v. Port of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  5. City of Wooster v. ArbenzOhio Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Kingsway Cathedral v. Iowa Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Iowa · 2006
  2. In Re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Land of WinkelmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. State ex rel. Blank v. BeasleyOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. In Re Appropriation of Easements From LeasOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Masheter v. BoehmOhio Court of Appeals · 1973

13 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