Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Miller v. Anthony

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1995No. 93-2238PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

This case presents two issues for review. We first determine that no right to a jury trial attaches in a nuisance abatement action. Second, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence of chronic felony violations of R.C. Chapter 2925 on a parcel of property is sufficient to prove that R.C. 3719.10 applies to such premises. There need not be evidence that the violations are occurring either at the time a complaint is filed or at the time a hearing takes place in order for a nuisance subject to abatement to exist.

I

With its first proposition of law, the state argues that the appeals court…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woollen Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1863
  3. Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. North Supply Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Cameron v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  5. Solly v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Spenard Action Committee v. Lot 3, Block 1, Evergreen SubdivisionAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Pizza v. RezcallahOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State Ex Rel. Jones v. Hamilton County Board of CommissionersOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. Town of Delafield v. WinkelmanCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
  5. Defiance Cty. Bd. of Health v. McCallaOhio Court of Appeals · 2012

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