Legal Opinion

Voinovich v. Board of Park Commrs.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1975No. 74-897Published

1Opinion of the CourtO’Neill, C. J.

The question presented in this appeal is whether Amended House Bill No. 355 (1973) is constitutional.

Appellant contends that Perk v. Euclid (1969), 17 Ohio St. 2d 4, 244 N. E. 2d 475, is controlling in the present case. This court disagrees. The syllabus in Perk states:

“Section 2 of Amended Senate Bill No. 351 (1967), an uncodifled temporary statute, is retroactive and discriminatory legislation, conferring benefits upon delinquent taxpayers not equally available to nondelinquent taxpayers and is therefore contrary to Section 2 of Article I, and Section 28 of Article II of the Constitution of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ursuline Academy v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Perk v. City of EuclidOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Ursuline Academy v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API