Legal Opinion · Dissent

Apple Group, Ltd. v. Granger Township Board of Zoning Appeals

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 2015No. 2014-0301Published

1DissentKennedy, J.

{¶ 30} Respectfully, I dissent. How the General Assembly intended a township to exercise its zoning power over privately owned land is at the very heart of this controversy.

[TJownships of Ohio have no inherent or constitutionally granted police power, the power upon which zoning legislation is based. Whatever police or zoning power townships of Ohio have is that delegated by the General Assembly, and it follows that such power is limited to that which is expressly delegated to them by statute.

Yorkavitz v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 166 Ohio St. 349, 351, 142 N.E.2d 655 (1957).

{¶ 31}…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State v. FutrallOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Pritz v. MesserOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010

15 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