Legal Opinion

Scott v. City of Columbus

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1923No. 18025PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

Plaintiffs in error claim:

“(1) Neither lot owner has had compensation for her lot assessed by a jury.
“(2) Neither lot owner has been afforded due process of law, because there is no proceeding by which either owner may now have the value of her property, or her share of the $40,000, fixed by a jury. Any proceeding to divide the fund would necessarily be in equity.
“(3) The proceeding under chapter I, division III, of title XII of the G-eneral Code is a proceeding in rem. The duty is upon the municipality to procure an assessment of each lot or parcel of land taken. The privilege afforded the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Matter of the Application of Cooper, Etc.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
  2. Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Co. v. EschnerIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Railroad v. DiverIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Rusch v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Kansas City Interurban Railway Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Sanitary Commercial Services, Inc. v. ShankOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. United States v. RunnerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API