Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Bigelow

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 1941No. 28852 and 28853PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBettman, J.

These two related actions have a common purpose — to arrest the submission to the electorate of a proposed amendment to the Cincinnati city .Charter. The validity of the ordinance directing the board of elections to submit the proposed amendment to the voters is attacked on grounds falling into two general categories: First, that the proposed charter amendment providing for the acquisition of a public utility by the city of Cincinnati would, if adopted, contravene Sections 4 and 5 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio, since Section 5 provides that “any municipality proceeding to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
  2. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Mills v. CowgillIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914
  4. State Ex Rel. Waltz v. MichellOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Morgenthaler v. CohenOhio Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Driscoll v. Austintown AssociatesOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State, Ex Rel. v. West LakeOhio Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Town of Hilton Head Island v. Coalition of Expressway OpponentsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  5. State ex rel. Obojski v. PerciakOhio Supreme Court · 2007

28 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