Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Eliza Jennings, Inc. v. Noble

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1990No. 89-143PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Per curiam

The main issue before this court is whether appellee, Eliza Jennings, Inc., for the purpose of receiving permits to “tap in” to North Olmsted’s sanitary sewer system, is required to submit a fee calculated solely by reference to North Olmsted Codified Ordinances Section 911.10, or whether the “benefited unit” provisions of Section 911.09 should also apply. For the reasons cited below, we find that, in order to receive such permits for its construction project, appellee must submit both a “per connection” fee, as described in North Olmsted Codified Ordinances Section 911.10, and a “benefited…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mills v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. BaconOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Harris v. RhodesOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. State ex rel. Willis v. SheboyOhio Supreme Court · 1983

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Danis Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark County Solid Waste Management DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. City of North Olmsted v. Eliza Jennings, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Schwab v. LattimoreOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
  4. Danis Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark Cty. Solid Waste Mgt. Dist.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State ex rel. Weaver v. Lake County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1991

25 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