Britt v. City of Columbus
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.
The novel issue this appeal presents is ■whether a municipality is constitutionally. empowered to appropriate property outside the municipality for the purpose of extending, outside the limits of the municipal corporation, its public utility facilities located within the municipality in order to sell excess public utility products or services, in this case sewage services, solely to nonresidents. The City asserts, in support of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, that such power is granted to it by Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.* Since the *6City relies solely…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Arey v. SherrillOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Prudential Co-Operative Realty Co. v. City of YoungstownOhio Supreme Court · 1928
- Board of Education of City School District v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court · 1928
- Ohio Power Co. v. Village of AtticaOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Mead-Richer v. City of ToledoOhio Court of Appeals · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Moore v. City of MiddletownOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Clifton v. Village of BlanchesterOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Board of County Commissioners v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Amherst Builders Ass'n v. City of AmherstOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- City of St. Marys v. Dayton Power & Light Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1992
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.