Legal Opinion
City of Columbus v. Ward
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided September 21, 1940No. 3276PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By GEIGER, J.
This matter is before this Court on appeal on questions of law from the judgment of the Court below. It is submitted to us on extensive briefs to which we have given close attention.
The City of Columbus, through its City Attorney, upon the written request of Robert J. Beatty, a taxpayer, brings an action against the Director of Public Safety, the Auditor and Treasurer of said municipality, in which it is recited that on January 22, 1940, an ordinance known as 385-39 was duly passed.
Four causes of action are set up, in which it is alleged the ordinance is invalid, but by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- M. H. Rhodes, Inc. v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Rowe v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Eisenmann v. TesterOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
3Cited by13 opinions
- Foster's, Inc. v. Boise CityIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
- Cassidy v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
- Wilhoit v. City of SpringfieldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1943
- Bowers v. City of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
- Andrews v. City of MarionIndiana Supreme Court · 1943
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.