Legal Opinion

New York, Chicago & St. Louis Rd. v. Bucsi

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1934No. 24370PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.

The salient facts in this case are not disputed, but there is a serious dispute as to the law applicable. We may say at the outset that the Bucsis are not entitled to. any consideration in so far as the Woodland avenue feature of the case is concerned. Whatever obstruction there was at Woodland avenue and East 86th street was temporary, and there is nothing in the record to show that the conditions there at the present time in any wise interfere with the access of the Bucsis to their property.

There is no question that the physical facts herein make a clear cul de sac case. The Bucsis had but…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Littler v. City of LincolnIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Buhl v. Fort Street Union Depot Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. DeReamer v. Pacific Express Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
  4. Kimball v. HomanMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Mayor of Newark v. HattSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1910

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Warren v. Iowa State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
  2. Smith v. Erie Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
  3. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. SilvaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Jarnagin v. Louisiana Highway CommissionLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Gayton v. Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Colorado · 1962

26 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