Legal Opinion

Billington v. Cotner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1971No. Nos. 70-654, 70-644 and 70-653PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.

What is the effect of the Mayor’s veto of Ordinance No. 1918-69? Although this question was paramount in appellant Billington’s contentions before the Court of Common Pleas, he does not raise that question in this court. Appellees, however, refer to it in brief and argument. In order to make our decision relevant to the entire controversy, we deal with that issue.

Section 9, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, provides that an amendment to a charter of a municipality *146“may be submitted to the electors of a.municipality by a two-thirds vote of the legislative authority thereof, and, upon…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. In Re Constitutionality of Chapter 315, Laws of 1943Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
  2. New England Box Co. v. C & R Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  3. Byrd v. State Ex Rel. ColquettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  4. State ex rel. Foreman v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  5. People Ex Rel. Coutrakon v. LohrIllinois Supreme Court · 1956

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Semik v. Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State ex rel. Commt. for the Charter Amendment, City Trash Collection v. WestlakeOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Committee for Charter Amendment v. City of WestlakeOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. ComTech Systems, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State ex rel. City of Bedford v. Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1991

17 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