Legal Opinion
Solly v. City of Toledo
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 22, 1966No. 39755PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.
In 39 American Jurisprudence 454, Section 183, it is stated:
“The summary abatement of nuisances without judicial process or proceeding was well known to the common law long prior to the adoption of the Constitution, and, hence, is not within the prohibition of the provisions of that instrument, and exists in the absence of statute. * * * the right may be exercised by public officers, municipal corporations, and by private individuals. The legislature may authorize the summary abatement of public nuisances * * *. Also, provision may be made for the forfeiture * * * or destruction of property…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Kroplin v. TruaxOhio Supreme Court · 1929
- DiMaggio v. MYSTIC BUILDING WRECKING CO. INC.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
- Leavers v. City of CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- John Harris v. City of AkronCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Coles v. GranvilleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Leppo v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Coles v. GranvilleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Ronald W. Kruse and Sylvia A. Kruse v. Village of Chagrin Falls, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.