Legal Opinion

Martin v. City of Canton

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 22, 1931PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

3HERICK, PJ.

The question therefore presented is whether the facts admitted by the demurrer to be true constitute a nuisance as contemplated in §3714 GC, and that, if this be true such facts should be submitted to a jury under proper instructions'; or do the alleged facts in this pleading disclose that the city, in the performance of its duty, or in its failure to perform, was acting in a purely governmental function, and hence not liable for the damages plaintiff sustained?

The Code section involved in the controversy reads: “Municipal corporations shall have special power to regulate the use…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Wooster v. ArbenzOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Aldrich v. City of YoungstownOhio Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Hanson v. BerryNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926
  4. City of Hamilton v. DilleyOhio Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Town of Fort Oglethorpe v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1968
  2. Appeal of Pine Bluffs v. State Board of EqualizationWyoming Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Parson v. Texas CityCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1953
  4. Bady v. DetwilerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Kirk v. City of MuskogeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938

14 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