Legal Opinion

Falor v. Mong, Aud.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 12, 1934No. 2281PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By STEVENS, J.

Prom a consideration of the competent evidence, we are unanimously of the opinion that the premises of plaintiff sought to be assessed, receive no present or potential benefit from the sewer constructed.

Defendants, in their answer, say that plaintiff never filed any objection in writing to the assessments made on his land, and has therefore waived all objections he might have made to said improvement or sa’id assessments.

Reliance is placed by defendants upon the case of Cuyahoga Falls v Beck, 110 Oh St 82, as substantiating their contention that plaintiff, having failed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Ogden CityUtah Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Horton v. DriskellWyoming Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Crim v. Town of PhilippiWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Rapid Railway Co. v. SchroederMichigan Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Laskey v. HiltyOhio Court of Appeals · 1951
  2. Arvidson v. Board of County CommissionersAshtabula County Court of Common Pleas · 1971
  3. Gahlon W. Kunkle v. Fulton County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
  4. Gaylord v. Village of HudsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1938
  5. Kentucky Joint Stock Land Bank of Lexington v. JewettOhio Court of Appeals · 1937

3 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