Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Commrs.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 19, 1928No. 21291PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The demurrer raises the question whether the facts disclosed in the amended petition entitle the plaintiff in error to the relief sought, to wit, a writ of mandamus to compel the commissioners "to issue a voucher to the relator for this said sum of money," and "that they order the correction of the said assessment list" and issue an order "commanding the said Henry H. Forsthoefel, auditor aforesaid, to deliver his warrant to the treasurer of Mercer county, Ohio, in favor of the relator for said amount."

Plaintiff in error claims to have paid his assessment for the improvement in question under…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Lamborn v. County CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Railway Co. v. McShaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  4. Comm'rs of Wabaunsee Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
  5. Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Commissioners of Wyandotte CountySupreme Court of Kansas · 1876

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ryan v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State Ex Rel. Bassichis v. ZangerleOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Brunner v. RhodesOhio Court of Appeals · 1953
  4. Heuck v. Cincinnati Model Homes Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Pennsylvania Railroad v. Scioto-Sandusky Conservancy DistrictOhio Court of Appeals · 1956

2 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