Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Foster v. Wittenberg

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1968No. 68-471PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

In his petition in the instant case, relator alleges that under Section 2151.10, Revised Code, there is a mandatory duty to appropriate the sums requested. He' alleges also that respondent had funds from which it could have made the necessary and requested appropriations.

Respondent demurs on the ground that the petition does not state a cause of action. It is respondent’s position that the failure to allege in the petition that the respondent presently has funds available for appropriation makes such petition subject to demurrer. The demurrer does not raise the question of the reasonableness…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Zangerle v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  2. State Ex Rel. Motter v. AtkinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  3. State Ex Rel. Clarke v. Board of County Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. State v. SteffenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. DelvallieOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  3. State ex rel. Cleveland Municipal Court v. Cleveland City CouncilOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. State v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. State ex rel. Johnston v. TaulbeeOhio Supreme Court · 1981

32 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