Legal Opinion

City of Cincinnati v. Bossert Machine Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1968No. 68-225PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchneider, J.

The Court of Appeals did not give proper effect to our decisions sustaining a similar appropria*78tion procedure. Although Masheter v. Huysman, 177 Ohio St. 118, and In re Appropriation of Easements, 172 Ohio St. 338, involved Chapter 5519, Revised Code, the applicable procedure in those cases is virtually identical with that prescribed by Chapter 163. The distinction is terminological. Hence, the difference is insubstantial.

Under Section 5519.02, Revised Code, the owner’s challenge to the finding of value by the Director of Highways is by “petition.” Section 163.08, Revised Code, designates the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cassidy v. GlossipOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Acme Engineering Co. v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Madjorous v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  4. State ex rel. Board of Education v. SchumannOhio Supreme Court · 1966

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Seventh Urban, Inc. v. University Circle Property Development, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Pallini v. DankowskiOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  3. City of Akron v. GayOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Dean v. AngelasOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Masheter v. BenuaOhio Court of Appeals · 1970

18 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