Legal Opinion

The State Ex Rel. Stauss v. County of Cuyahoga

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1935No. 25297PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.

As we view it, the law of this case is largely determined by the answer to one question, namely: Does Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution of Ohio, as amended, effective January 1, 1913, deny to the County Commissioners of Cuyahoga county the right to refund the county’s bonded indebtedness ?

Section 11 of Article XII of the Constitution of Ohio, as amended, effective January 1, 1913, reads as follows:

“No bonded indebtedness of the state, or any polit ical subdivisions thereof, shall be incurred or renewed, unless, in the legislation under which such indebtedness is incurred or renewed,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jordan v. Breece Manufacturing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Fenwick v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1929
  3. State Ex Rel. Southard v. City of Van WertOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  4. State Ex Rel. Bruml v. Village of BrooklynOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  5. State ex rel. Heald v. ZangerleOhio Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Alden Corp. v. Village of SolonOhio Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Warner v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API