Legal Opinion
Wall v. City of Cincinnati
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 15, 1948No. 31403PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.
The plaintiff has based his action on the theory of a nuisance created by the defendant city in violation of the provisions of Section 3714, General Code, reading as follows:
“Municipal corporations shall have special power to regulate the use of the streets, to he exercised in the manner provided by law. The council shall have the care, supervision and control of public highways, streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, public grounds, bridges, acqueducts, and viaducts, within the corporation, and shall cause them to be kept open, in repair, and free from nuisance.”
At the threshold of this…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- City of Wooster v. ArbenzOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Gottesman v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Yackee v. Village of NapoleonOhio Supreme Court · 1939
- Gaines v. Village of WyomingOhio Supreme Court · 1947
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Fankhauser v. City of MansfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Harp v. Cleveland Hts.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
- LiCause v. City of CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Gabris v. BlakeOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- State ex rel. Fejes v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1966
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.