Legal Opinion

City of Cincinnati v. Whitman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1975No. 74-556PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Steb,N, J.

The sole assignment of error in the Court of Appeals was that “ [t]he Environmental Board of Ee-view erred in ordering the appellant to fluoridate its water supply because it placed a burden on appellant to extricate itself from a perilous situation.” The city contends that to obey the orders of the Board and the Director, it must act in contempt of the permanent injunction issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. Because we conclude that the Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction, and therefore that the injunction is void, we agree that the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. City of Canton v. WhitmanOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Langer v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1939
  3. City of Mobile v. Gulf Development Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1965
  4. Aerated Products Co. of Buffalo, Inc. v. GodfreyNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  5. Harvey Payne, Inc. v. Slate Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Portage County Board of Commissioners v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Gannon v. PerkOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Malloy v. City of WestlakeOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State ex rel. Osborn v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  5. M6 Motors, Inc. v. Nissan of N. Olmsted, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014

22 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