Legal Opinion

Schiff v. City of Columbus

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1967No. 40179PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.

Plaintiffs contend and the Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs ’ lots were not “bounding and abutting upon the improvement” of Livingston Avenue. In our opinion, it is not necessary to consider whether they were or were not. The contention, that they were not so bounding and abutting, was apparently made because both Section 727.01 (c), Eevised Code, and Section 165 of the Columbus Charter limit use of the front-foot method of assessment to property “bounding and abutting upon the improvement.” However, all the evidence, including the resolution declaring the necessity of and the ordinance…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Butters v. City of OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Shoemaker v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Moore v. City of YonkersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
  4. Schiff v. City of ColumbusOhio Court of Appeals · 1965
  5. Alf v. Flick, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1962

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. City of Cincinnati v. SandOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Lincoln Properties, Inc. v. GoldslagerOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  3. State ex rel. Sigall v. Aetna Cleaning Contractors of Cleveland, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Hubbard v. CITY OF PIERRESouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Glass v. DrydenOhio Supreme Court · 1969

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