Legal Opinion

Save the Lake v. City of Hillsboro

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided August 23, 2004No. 04CA6PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harsha, Judge.

{¶ 1} Save the Lake, an Ohio nonprofit organization, appeals the trial court’s decision dismissing its complaint for lack of standing. It argues that under Civ.R. 71, it has standing to seek enforcement of a 1988 consent order entered into between the Ohio Attorney General and the city of Hillsboro. Because appellant is an incidental beneficiary rather than a person for whose benefit the consent order was entered, it does not have Civ.R. 71 standing. Therefore, we affirm the court’s judgment.

{¶ 2} In 1988, the Ohio Attorney General filed a complaint for injunctive relief and…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Sierra Club v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Elk Grove Unified School District v. NewdowSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Ashtabula River Corp. Group II v. Conrail, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008
  2. Watershed Mgt., L.L.C. v. NeffOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. Frank v. WNB Group, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019
  4. State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. MastergardOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  5. Najiy v. City of MiamiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008

4 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