Legal Opinion

City Commission of City of Springfield v. Bethel Township

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1982No. Nos. 81-881 and 81-884PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

I

In case No. 81-881, Springfield sets forth six propositions of law for our consideration. Each questions a separate calculation of the BTA and, except as otherwise noted, each will be discussed separately herein.

A

In reviewing Springfield’s estimated total expenditures for 1976, the BTA noted that the sum of $540,448 was included in Springfield’s 1976 budget as a “Contingencies” account. The BTA held that this account was an “account for non-existent needs” and eliminated the same from Springfield’s 1976 disbursements. The BTA then treated this account as part of the unencumbered balance of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Grabler Manufacturing Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Board of County Commissioners v. Village of Willoughby HillsOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Village of Waterville v. Spencer TownshipOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. City of Cleveland v. Budget CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  5. City Commission of Springfield v. Bethel TownshipOhio Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Canton v. Stark County Budget CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. City of Cincinnati v. Budget CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. City of Lima v. Allen County Budget CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Lima v. Allen Cty. Budget Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API