State Ex Rel. Christman v. Skinner
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
(Weygandt, C. J.).
A study of the pleadings, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel plainly requires not only an overruling of the motion but also a denial of the peremptory writ and a dismissal of the petition.
It is conceded that the respondent is charged with the statutory (Section 7595, General Code) duty of distributing the state educational equalization fund. It is also undisputed that the relators are in need of financial assistance in the operation of their schools. However, it likewise appears that 848 other school districts in various sections of the state of Ohio…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State, Ex Rel. v. BigelowOhio Supreme Court · 1941
- State Ex Rel. Wilms v. BlakeOhio Supreme Court · 1945
- State ex rel. Executone of Northwest Ohio, Inc. v. CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Britton v. ScottOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Refreshment Services Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.