Legal Opinion
Baxter v. Van Houter
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 15, 1926No. 19769PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
It is conceded that the assessment against at least five of the lots owned by the plaintiffs in error was greatly in excess of the value of the lots after the improvement was made. It is also conceded that the plaintiffs had no actual notice of the assessment and that the improvement was completed before the assessment was made. The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs’ petition, evidently under the authority of the cases of Bashore v. Brown, Treas., 108 Ohio St., 18, 140 N. E., 489, and City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Beck, 110 Ohio St., 82, 143 N. E., 661.
In the Beck case, supra, however,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hutcheson v. StorrieTexas Supreme Court · 1899
- State ex rel. Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. City of ElySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- City of Louisville v. BitzerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Power v. City of HelenaMontana Supreme Court · 1911
- City of Cuyahoga Falls v. BeckOhio Supreme Court · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Glass v. DrydenOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Domito v. Village of MaumeeOhio Supreme Court · 1942
- Baltimore & Ohio Rd. v. Village of Oak HillOhio Court of Appeals · 1927
- Laskey v. HiltyOhio Court of Appeals · 1951
- Mallo v. Village of DoverOhio Court of Appeals · 1929
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.