Himebaugh v. City of Canton
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.
The sole and novel question considered and decided by the Court of Appeals was whether the plaintiffs possess the legal capacity to institute this action inasmuch as they do not allege that they first made a demand on the. solicitor of the city of Canton to bring the suit, as provided by Section 4314, General Code.
The plaintiffs say they have sued under favor of Section 11257, General Code, which provides that when the question is one of a common or general interest of many persons, or the parties are very numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cincinnati Street Railroad v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- City of Lakewood v. ReesOhio Supreme Court · 1937
- Hartwig Realty Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1934
3Cited by15 opinions
- City of Wooster v. GrainesOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- West Capital Associates Ltd. Partnership v. City of AnnapolisCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- State ex rel. Duerk v. DonaheyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Mead-Richer v. City of ToledoOhio Court of Appeals · 1961
- Westbrook v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaOhio Supreme Court · 1988
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.