Legal Opinion
City of Wooster v. Graines
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 3, 1990No. 89-403PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
It is beyond dispute that Section 4, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution authorizes a municipality to own and operate a utility.1 Therefore, Wooster, as a municipality, had the authority to establish and maintain the sewer utility as long as the rates to be charged and the revenue collected therefrom complied with the mandates of R.C. 729.49 and 729.52.
R.C. 729.49 provides in pertinent part:
“The legislative authority of a municipal corporation which has installed or is installing sewerage, a system of sewerage, sewage pumping works, or sewage treatment or disposal works for public use,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- City of Toledo v. ReasonoverOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- State v. PhillipsOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- State v. AbramsOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Tucker v. Webb Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
- Wall v. Firelands Radiology, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. City of ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Aluminum Line Products Co. v. Brad Smith Roofing Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.