Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Haynes v. City of Franklin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 2002No. Nos. 2000-2004 and 2000-2141Published

1ConcurrenceLundberg Stratton, J.

{¶ 22} I concur in the judgment reached by the majority, but I do so for different reasons. I agree with the majority’s holding that an edge drop on the berm of a county or city road does not, in and of itself, constitute a nuisance within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(3). However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that circumstances may exist in which a defect in the berm arising after the design and completion of construction of a roadway, including a defect creating an edge drop between the pavement and the adjoining *350berm, would fall within the definition of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Manufacturer's National Bank v. Erie County Road CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Valescu v. Cleveland Metroparks SystemOhio Court of Appeals · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API