Legal Opinion

Mehl v. Stegner, Dir. of Dept. of Bldgs.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 7, 1930No. 3682PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

If street boundaries were to influence the metes and bounds of zones, it would be natural that the limits of Business “A” district should include the entire square north on Reading Road to Lexington Avenue, especially as directly north of plaintiff’s property, across Reading Road is Business “A” district.

It is manifest also in this connection that if plaintiff’s property is to be continued in a residential district, there being no street intervening between this property on the south and Business “A” district, that its proximity and contiguity to such business district will have a detrimental…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Nectow v. City of CambridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Schlagheck v. WinterfeldOhio Court of Appeals · 1958
  2. State, Ex Rel. Euverard v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 1954
  3. Marble Cliff v. LanmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
  4. Murdock v. Norwood, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1937
  5. City of Toledo v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 1957

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