Legal Opinion

Shemo v. Mayfield Heights

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 2000No. 98-2054PublishedCited by 62 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

In this case, we are asked to decide whether Mayfield Heights’ U-2-A zoning classification of the property is unconstitutional. Initially, we must decide whether the court of appeals was correct in remanding the case for reconsideration under the Goldberg decision. For the reasons that follow, we find that remand to the trial court was unnecessary. Since there was competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that the U-2*9A zoning classification does not substantially advance a legitimate health, safety, and welfare concern of Mayfield…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Seasons Coal Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Karches v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Central Motors Corp. v. City of Pepper PikeOhio Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. Moore v. City of MiddletownOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  2. State ex rel. Shemo v. City of Mayfield HeightsOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Blair v. McDonaghOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland HillsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  5. State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002

57 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