Legal Opinion

Harford v. Dagenhart

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 27, 1936No. 362PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*310OPINION

By HORNBECK, J.

We then come to a consideration, first, of the case made by the plaintiff upon the charge that the operation of the funeral home in the manner and with the effect' which vrs have heretofore set forth will constitute a nuisance.

There are but three cases in Ohio cited, or which we find upon independent research which are germane to the narrow question presented. They are Koebler et v Pennewell et, 75 Oh St 278, Mosier v Jones, 1 Abs 721 and 801, and Bauer v Huth, 1 Abs 676. The last mentioned case is a Nisi Prius opinion from Hamilton County and the Mosier case was…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Saier v. JoyMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Densmore v. Evergreen Camp No. 147Washington Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Bragg v. IvesCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1927
  4. Higgins v. BlochSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  5. Goodrich v. StarrettWashington Supreme Court · 1919

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fox v. Shriver-AllisonOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
  2. Banford v. Aldrich Chemical Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API