Kaufman v. Village of Newburgh Heights
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSchneider, J.
Newburgh Heights does not here contend that its zoning ordinance is constitutional with respect to the Kaufman parcel, but that Kaufman had no right to attack that constitutionality without first appealing to the board of zoning appeals. We disagree, and, therefore, affirm.
It is axiomatic that the doctrine of “failure to exhaust administrative remedies available” may be a defense to an action in mandamus (State, ex rel. Schindel, v. Rowe [1971], 25 Ohio St. 2d 47; State, ex rel. Foreman, v. City Council [1965], 1 Ohio St. 2d 132; State, ex rel. Lieux, v. Westlake [1951], 154 Ohio St. 412); to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State, Ex Rel. v. West LakeOhio Supreme Court · 1951
- Burt Realty Corp. v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- L. & M. Investment Co. v. CutlerOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- State ex rel. Foreman v. City Council of BellefontaineOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- State ex rel. Schindel v. RoweOhio Supreme Court · 1971
3Cited by29 opinions
- Karches v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Driscoll v. Austintown AssociatesOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Village of Pepper PikeOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
- Schomaeker v. First National Bank of OttawaOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.