Legal Opinion

In Re Removal of Member of Council Joseph Coppola

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1951No. 32274PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.

In this opinion the complainant will bo designated as such and Coppola and Schraum as the couneilmen.

Section 4670, G-eneral Code, provides :

“When complaint under oath is filed with the probate judge of the county in which the municipality., or the larger part thereof is situated, by any elector of the corporation, signed and approved by four other electors thereof, charging any one or more of the following: That a member of the council or an officer of the corporation is or has been interested, directly or indirectly, in the profits of a contract, job, work or service, * * * in work…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Attorney-General v. CovingtonOhio Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Davis v. Steuben School TownshipIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
  3. McMillen v. Diehl, Judge.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  4. State ex rel. Vogt v. DonaheyOhio Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. HeitzlerOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Stokes v. Probate CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. State Ex Rel. Stokes v. Probate Court of Cuyahoga CountyOhio Court of Appeals · 1969
  4. State ex rel. Jedlicka v. Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  5. State ex rel. Lukens v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1973

1 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