Legal Opinion
Taylor v. Carpenter
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 18, 1976No. 75-635PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
Appellants, contend that when the alley was vacated by the city in 1956, they were vested with a fee simple interest in one-half the width thereof.,
It has longlbeen the law-of this state that where a *139street is vacated by a city, the land of which it was comprised passes in equal halves to the abutting lot owners, subject only to such rights as other such owners may have in the street as a necessary means of access to their properties. Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty (1901), 65 Ohio St. 264, 62 N. E. 341; Hamilton, Glendale & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Parish (1902), 67 Ohio St. 181, 65 N. E. 1011;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Watson Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925
- Watrous v. SouthworthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
- City of Dayton v. WoodgeardOhio Court of Appeals · 1962
3Cited by7 opinions
- Nusekabel v. Cincinnati Public School Employees Credit Union, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1997
- Faber v. Queen City Terminals, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
- Carlyn v. GarnOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- Tanner v. ShirkeyOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Butzer v. JohnsOhio Court of Appeals · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.