Legal Opinion

Carroll v. Washington Township Zoning Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1978No. 78-360PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The cardinal issue presented is whether R. C. 2721.12 requires, in an action for declaratory relief involving the constitutionality of a township zoning resolution, the service of a copy of the complaint upon the attorney general.

R. C. 2721.12, as pertinent herein, provides:

“* * * In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, the municipal corporation shall he made a party and shall be heard, and if any statute or the ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general shall also be served with a. copy of the proceeding and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Coshocton Real Estate Co. v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1946

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. AgriGeneral Co. v. LightnerOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. Alcus v. Bainbridge Twp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  3. City of Hamilton v. Fairfield TownshipOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Golubski v. US Plastic Equip., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API