Legal Opinion

City of Cleveland v. Lausche

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 8, 1943No. 19094PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Ey SKEEL, J.

The City of Cleveland has for a great many years maintained' and operated a Zoological Garden, first in Wade Park and then, of late years, in Brookside Park. The purpose of a Zoological Garden is cultural and educational, and is an activity which a municipality clearly has a legal right to own and to operate.

The city, on April 24, 1940, through its council, passed a resolution directing the mayor’s advisory committee and the committee on parks and public property of the city council to study the-feasibility of entering into negotiations with the Cleveland Mu • seum of…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. City of Kenai v. Friends of the Recreation Center, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Persons v. City of Fort WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1990
  3. City of Tulsa v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954
  4. Yellow Cab of Cleveland, Inc. v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Hiller v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961

7 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