Legal Opinion

Plummer v. Village of Swanton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1938No. 26913PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

If the plaintiff can maintain his action at all, it is as an individual and not as a taxpayer; therefore, the court considers the cause as if it were an action by an individual.

Plaintiff contends that this ordinance is violative of Section 4226, General Code, which provides: “No ordinance * * *. shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. * * * ”

In the case of Withey v. Fowler Co., 164 Iowa, 377, 145 N. W., 923, the court, held valid an ordinance passed under an identical statute. That ordinance attempted the regulation of vehicles in use or left…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Withey v. Fowler Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1914
  2. Rowe v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Crawford v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
  4. Gray v. MaloneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  5. Campbell v. SchorrCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dougherty v. Folk, MayorOhio Court of Appeals · 1941
  2. Frecker v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1950

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API