Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Board of County Commissioners

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1923No. 17919Published

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

Plaintiff in error claims that the sole fact that Geiger, one of the commissioners acting in the road proceedings, owns land within one-half mile of the proposed improvement, and that his land will be specially assessed to pay the cost of the improvement “mates him a judge in his own case,” disqualifies him from voting upon all proceedings relative to the road in question, and renders the road proceedings void. It must be conceded that under the law Geiger cast the deciding vote in the *570meetings of September 13, 1922, and October 11, 1922. The resolution of September 13 was passed without…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage Dist.California Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Lent v. TillsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Lent v. TillsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  4. State ex rel. Cook v. HouserWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  5. State ex rel. Dorgan v. FiskNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906

11 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