Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Didelius v. City Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1936No. 25901 and 25902PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

These causes were presented to this court upon general demurrers to the answers of the respondents. The demurrers search the record. The legal questions involved in each case are similar, and the disposition of Cause No. 25901 is dispositive of the other.

Considering now Cause No. 25901. The answer of the respondents alleges that Ordinance 3389-C, passed in 1936, relating to the issue of anticipatory notes, was “not a new, separate or main step in the acquiring of said utility, but is merely carrying into effect the mandate of the electors expressed at said election, when Resolution 466-C was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State Ex Rel. Diehl v. AbeleOhio Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. City of Fostoria v. KingOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  2. City of Bowie v. County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
  3. City of Middletown v. City CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Korn v. DunahueOhio Court of Appeals · 1967
  5. Swetzof v. PhilemonoffAlaska Supreme Court · 2009

5 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