Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Gross v. Board of Directors of Miami Conservancy Dist.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1943No. 29143PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

The relator maintains that the Conservancy Act of Ohio, effective February 17, 1914, Sections 6828-1 to 6828-79 inclusive, General Code, requires “appraisal of benefits from time to time as it becomes evident to the board of directors that the condition of any real property in the district has changed to an extent that the owners of such property are profiting by or making use of the works of the district to a degree not compensated for by the original appraisal of benefits” and that changes of that character in the condition of many assessed properties have occurred and are manifest to the…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. RobinsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. Wells v. DurossOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. Cummins v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy DistrictOhio Court of Appeals · 1943
  4. In Matter of the Exception v. Carlisle, 06ap120067 (4-11-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District v. Carlisle Tree Farms, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

1 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