Legal Opinion

Taylor v. City of London

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 2000No. 99-411PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The issue before us is whether city council had the authority to enact emergency legislation accepting the applications for annexations of the two parcels of land to the city of London. For the reasons that follow, we answer this question in the affirmative.

As a threshold matter, it is clear that we must, as a matter of law, accept all of the allegations of appellants’ complaint as true. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 753, 756. Further, in O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 N.E.2d 753, syllabus,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Garverick v. HoffmanOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  4. State ex rel. Board of Trustees v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Tamele v. BrinkmanMedina County Court of Common Pleas · 1972

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Bailey v. Republic Engineered Steels, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State ex rel. Hummel v. SadlerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Hummel v. SadlerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Ogle v. Ohio Power CompanyOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. Taylor v. LondonOhio Supreme Court · 2000

27 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