Legal Opinion

Kinsey v. Bower, Aud.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 17, 1946No. 30628PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurnee, J.

The only question briefed or argued by either side is what effect is to be given Section 5548-2, General Code, and, if applicable, what is meant by the phrase, “additional levies for specific purposes,” as used in such statute.

We proceed with the decision of this case by assuming, without deciding, that appellants had no administrative remedy. The petition contains the allegation:

“Plaintiffs say they have no adequate remedy through any administrative proceeding for the matters and things herein complained of.” This has not been challenged in brief or argument.

The trial court’s journal entry…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Southern Surety Co. v. Standard Slag Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1927
  3. State Ex Rel. Draper v. WilderOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  4. State Ex Rel. Matthews v. ZangerleOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  5. State ex rel. Matthews v. ZangerleOhio Court of Appeals · 1933

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McDermott v. IrwinOhio Supreme Court · 1947
  2. State v. HuffmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. City of Cincinnati v. BrooksOhio Supreme Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API