Legal Opinion
Put-In-Bay Island Taxing District Authority v. Colonial, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 11, 1992No. 91-2064PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The issue in this case is whether R.C. 5739.101 et seq. is at odds with Section 26, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. For the reasons that follow, we find that R.C. 5739.101 et seq. contravenes Section 26, Article II.
R.C. 5739.101 establishes each island in Ohio “ * * * as a special taxing district solely for the purpose of imposing tax authorized by this section * * * to raise revenue for the general funds of the townships and municipal corporations whose boundaries include such island territory.” “Island,” as used in R.C. 5739.101 et seq., “ * * * means an island that is not connected to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Dayton Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 44 v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- State Ex Rel. Stanton v. PowellOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Brown v. State Ex Rel. MerlandOhio Supreme Court · 1929
3Cited by13 opinions
- Desenco, Inc. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Austintown Township Board of Trustees v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Austintown Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Kelleys Island Caddy Shack, Inc. v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- City of Dublin v. State, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.