Conn v. Jones
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtAleen, J.
This case does not involve an application to enjoin a tax levy or tax collection because of a claimed illegality or injustice in the amount of an assessment. For that reason the holdings in City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Beck, 110 Ohio St., 82, 143 N. E., 661, Bashore v. Brown, Treas., 108 Ohio St., 18, 140 N. E., 489, and Hammond, Treas. v. Winder, Recr., 112 Ohio St., 158, 147 N. E., 94, do not apply. Thus it was conceded in the Cuya hoga Falls case that the statute had been duly followed, that the proceedings were entirely regular, and that the city had the power to levy the assessment, but it…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cummings v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Van Norden v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Grether v. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- City of Cuyahoga Falls v. BeckOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Hammond v. WinderOhio Supreme Court · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936
- Wehrle Foundation v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- BP Communications Alaska, Inc. v. Central Collection AgencyOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Washington University v. BaumannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- State Ex Rel. Methodist Book Concern v. GuckenbergerOhio Supreme Court · 1937
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.