Legal Opinion

Neudoefer Silcox Co. v. Marting Bros.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 22, 1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMauck, J.

The plaintiff is the owner of part of lot 302 in the city of Portsmouth, fronting on Fifth street and running back alongside one alley to another alley, which latter alley is parallel with Fifth street and extends from Chillicothe street, the first north and south street east of said lot, to Washington street, the first north and south street west of said lot. This rear alley is sixteen feet wide. The plaintiff’s lot is covered by a valuable building, flush with Fifth street in front, and with the alleys mentioned on the west and north sides of such lot. This building is especially planned…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Stanwood v. City of MaldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  2. City of Chicago v.BurckyIllinois Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Rd. v. BucsiOhio Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Lowell v. Buffalo CountyNebraska Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Gough v. Cincinnati & Pennsylvania R. R., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1931
  4. Huron County Commissioners v. MiddleswarthOhio Court of Appeals · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API