Legal Opinion

Princeton City School District Board of Education v. Zaino

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 2002No. Nos. 00-1502, 00-1503, 00-1504, 00-1505, 00-1506 and 00-1507PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

On April 23, 1990, the Union Township Board of Trustees resolved to declare improvements for several of the roads in the township to be public improvements that qualified for tax increment financing (“TIF”) because the improvements would alleviate traffic problems for area businesses and would spur new development. The board of trustees declared the improvements “to be a public purpose for a period of thirty (30) years (subject to earlier termination upon the retirement of tax increment debt), commencing on the date of this Resolution.” The board of trustees identified the parcels of land…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Desenco, Inc. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Stanjim Co. v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Akron Standard Division of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Groveport Madison Local Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Obetz v. McClain (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
  3. Fults v. City of CoralvilleSupreme Court of Iowa · 2003
  4. Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Bd. of Educ. of the Loveland City Sch. Dist. v. Bd. of Trs. of Symmes Twp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018

5 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