Legal Opinion
Eikenbary v. City of Dayton
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided December 2, 1964No. 2870 and 2871PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSherer, J.
These actions have been consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. The actions are taxpayers’ suits challenging various steps taken and to be taken by the city of Dayton in the execution of two urban renewal projects, the Miami-Maple and the Perry-Mead projects. These projects together comprise about fifty-two acres of land in the western downtown area of the city of Dayton, which the city of Dayton proposes to sell to a single developer for the purpose of redevelopment.
The trial court resolved all issues in these cases in favor of the city of Dayton and against the claims of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Berman v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Gohld Realty Co. v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Velishka v. NASHUA HOUSING AUTHORITYSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1954
- State Ex Rel. Doria v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Allerton Parking Corp. v. City of ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 1965
- Battison v. City of Niles, OhioDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1977
- Wilmington Housing Auth. v. Nos. 500Superior Court of Delaware · 1969