Legal Opinion

Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority v. Hairston

City of Cleveland Municipal Court

Decided April 22, 2003No. 02-CVG-05582PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Raymond L. Pianka, Judge.

{¶ 1} This ease is before the court on the plaintiff Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s (“CMHA”) objections to the magistrate’s conclusions of law. For the following reasons, plaintiff CMHA’s objections are overruled, and the magistrate’s decision is affirmed.

{¶2} The facts in this case appear largely to be undisputed. Hairston is a tenant in a public housing unit managed by CMHA On or about May 18, 2001, CMHA police discovered marijuana in Hairston’s unit. CMHA, while aware of the police activity, continued to accept Hairston’s rent. CMHA accepted Hair-ston’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brokamp v. LinnemanOhio Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Quinn v. Cardinal Foods, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Bredwell v. CarterOhio Court of Appeals · 1948
  4. Pinter v. HantzscheOhio Court of Appeals · 1937

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  2. United States v. Tracy WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  3. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Noel, 06ca009006 (6-11-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API