Ohio Valley Advertising Corp. v. Linzell
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
Defendant contends and plaintiff concedes that the state may not be sned without its consent and that the instant case is an action against the state. Plaintiff contends that Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, manifests the state’s assent to be sued by one whose property the state has taken without compensation. See Schmutte v. State, 147 Neb., 193, 22 N. W. (2d), 691; Rose v. State, 19 Cal. (2d), 713, 123 P. (2d), 505. Cf. Lucas v. Carney et ad., Board of County Commrs., 167 Ohio St., 416, 149 N. E. (2d), 238. Apparently, no such contention was before this court in either…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Omnia Commercial Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- State Ex Rel. Williams v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- Schmutte v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1946
- Britt v. Cole Drug Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.