Legal Opinion
City of Columbus v. Union Cemetery Ass'n
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 21, 1976No. 75-262PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Brown, J.
Uses which do not conform to valid zoning legislation may be regulated, and even girded to the point that they wither and die. Akron v. Chapman (1953), 160 Ohio St. 382, paragraph one of the syllabus; Curtiss v. Cleveland (1959), 170 Ohio St. 127; Davis v. Miller (1955), 163 Ohio St. 91, 95-97, Taft, J., concurring.
*50The meaning of the word “use” was the crucial inquiry in case No. 184,777. If the court had determined that vacant land currently held as “inventory” for the purpose of establishing graves is not a present use for cemetery purposes and that subsequently establishing graves would be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Norwood v. McDonaldOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- Whitehead v. General Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1969
- Oklahoma v. TextasSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- United States v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
3Cited by34 opinions
- Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Trautwein v. SorgenfreiOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Set Products, Inc. v. Bainbridge Township Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Brown v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- United States Ex Rel. MPA Construction, Inc. v. XL Specialty InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2004
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.