Legal Opinion

Middletown v. City Comm.

Butler County Court of Common Pleas

Decided August 24, 1939PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By mcdowell, j.

This action was instituted by the city attorney ■ of Middletown,. Ohio, on behalf of said municipality, against the city commission of Middletown, the members of said commission, the auditor of said city, and Van Lahr, Doll & Isphording, Inc., seeking to enjoin the issuance and sale of certain bonds in the amount of $1,800,000.00, purporting to have been authorized by an. ordinance numbered 2237 and adopted by said city commission on the 18th day of November, 1938, and to enjoin permanently said defendants and each of them from carrying out’the provisions of said…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Winston v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1895
  2. City of Joliet v. AlexanderIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Lobdell v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1907

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. StoufferOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
  2. Ohio Water Service Co. v. WashingtonFayette County Court of Common Pleas · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API