Legal Opinion
Zangerle v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 6, 1945No. 30128PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
It should be made clear' at the outset that this public utility was purchased by the city of Cleveland (hereinafter called the city), by virtue of the authority of Section 4 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio. The money required to pay for the acquired property was derived from the sale of mortgage revenue bonds in the total sum of $17,500,000, issued pursuant to Section 12 of Article XVIII thereof.
The agreed statement of facts discloses that the city owns and uses in the operation of its transit system both real and personal property. Therefore, in our view of this case, two…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ohio v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- City of Wooster v. ArbenzOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- State Ex Rel. Struble v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1937
- City of Portsmouth v. Mitchell Manufacturing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925
- County of Erie v. City of ErieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- City of Cleveland v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- State Ex Rel. Williams v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- Lepore v. Rhode Island Public Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1987
- City of Phoenix v. BowlesArizona Supreme Court · 1947
- Graf v. WarrenOhio Supreme Court · 1967
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.