Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Kauer v. Defenbacher
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 22, 1950No. 32007PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
Section 2288-2, General Code, reads:
“It shall be unlawful for any officer, board or commission of the state to enter into any contract, agreement or obligation involving the expenditure of mouey, or pass any resolution or order for the expenditure of money, unless the Director of Finance shall first certify that there is a balance in the appropriation pursuant to which such obligation is required to be paid, not otherwise obligated to pay precedent obligations.”
In the event there is money in a state fund, available for the purpose for which it is sought, it is the ministerial duty of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bucklin v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1851
- State ex rel. Huston v. CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1856
- State Ex Rel. S. Monroe & Son Co. v. BakerOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- State Ex Rel. McCaw v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1941
3Cited by34 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Anderson v. FadelySupreme Court of Kansas · 1957
- Application of Oklahoma Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
- State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Ennis v. State Highway CommissionIndiana Supreme Court · 1952
- Orbison v. WELSH, GOVERNORIndiana Supreme Court · 1962
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.