Legal Opinion

Miesz v. Village of Mayfield Heights

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 2, 1952No. 22388PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHurd, J.

This case has significance for other than the immediate parties, because it involves the consti tutionality of a zoning ordinance regulating the stripping and removal of loam or topsoil from land within residential and other higher use districts; a question not heretofore considered by Ohio courts. The parties will be designated as plaintiff and defendant, as they appeared in the trial court.

The plaintiff, Miesz, is in the business of general excavating and grading and is also a dealer in topsoil and humus. In May 1950 he purchased 100 acres of land located in the U-l or single residence use…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Nectow v. City of CambridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Zahn v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  4. Gorieb v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  5. Town of Burlington v. DunnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. In Re BarlowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
  3. City of Rocky River v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1973
  4. Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. In Re BarlowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993

1 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