Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Fairmount Center Co. v. Arnold

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1941No. 28445PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.

Appellant challenges the validity of both the rezoning Ordinance No. 4708 and the “interim” or “stop-gap” Ordinance No. 4709.

That Ordinance No. 4708 was aimed solely at appellant’s property is obvious. There was no other property to be affected. It is undisputed that in the absence of the stop-gap Ordinance No. 4709, a clear legal duty rested upon appellee to issue the building permit. The real question here is: Did the city have the right, by stop-gap ordinance, to hold off appellant until it could put into effect an ordinance rezoning appellant’s property?

Appellee’s brief contains the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Bauman v. State Ex Rel. UnderwoodOhio Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Kline v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  2. Carter v. City of BluefieldWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Munns v. StenmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Adler v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Putney v. Abington TownshipSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954

46 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