Legal Opinion

Lewellyn v. Village of South Zanesville

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 30, 1932PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHERICK, PJ.

The questions presented to this court for solution must be considered from two aspects, the first of which we consider to be the right to relief possessed by the plaintiff • heirs. Treating the petition for the improvement in the maimer indicated in the next preceding paragraph, we reach the conclusion that the plaintiff heirs have been illegally assessed in excess of 33 1-3 per cent, of the actual value of their undivided one-half interest in the property; that is, that their half interest cannot be legally assessed for an amount in excess of $100, and the collection of all above…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Conkle v. City of BellevueOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Dearmond v. City of HamiltonOhio Court of Appeals · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sullinger v. ReedOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
  2. Kocher v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023
  3. Williams v. Schneider, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County2018
  4. Williams v. SchneiderOhio Court of Appeals · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API