Legal Opinion

Bazell v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1968No. Nos. 41118 and 41386PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.

In each case, the record disclosed that the proposed stadium is designed to accommodate large crowds (approximately 50,000) at athletic and other exhibitions, including major league baseball and major league football games.

In the injunction case, it is contended that the city may not erect and maintain the stadium with public funds because the stadium is “designed to peculiarly benefit a few individuals rather than the public in general.”

In support of that contention, the plaintiff states that those who will use the stadium are to pay less for that use than will be required to erect and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. City of Toledo v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  2. City of Cleveland v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. State Ex Rel. Kauer v. DefenbacherOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. HillAppellate Court of Illinois · 1961
  5. Graf v. WarrenOhio Supreme Court · 1967

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Alan v. Wayne CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Huebner v. West Jefferson Village CouncilOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation v. City of Cuyahoga FallsOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. NJ Sports & Exposition Auth. v. McCraneNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1971
  5. Libertarian Party of Wisconsin v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1996

32 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