Legal Opinion

Lehman v. City of Toledo

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 26, 1934No. 2899PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

It is admited that the ordinance of April 17th could constitute no more than a request that the employes forego payment of 10% of their salaries for the reason and purposes therein stated, and the employes, we think it fair to say, knew that the effect of the ordinance necessarily was so limited, and if they did not actually so understand, the law declares it to be so. In the absence of fraud or deceit, one may not avoid the legal consequences of his acts by asserting that he did not know that he would become bound thereby. It is a matter of common knowledge that other political…

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Morrison v. City of Fort WorthTexas Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Barfield v. City of AtlantaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  3. Gamble v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Pemberton v. Board of Edn. of City School Dist.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1940
  5. STATE Ex HESS v. AKRON (City) EtOhio Court of Appeals · 1936

1 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