Legal Opinion

Siegel v. Kohn

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 25, 1932No. 12141PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtMiddleton, J.

It is apparent, however, that this aitorney had no personal connection with the alleged filing of the application and was~ not present when he claims it was filed. The remaining evidence of the defendants on this matter consists of alleged conversations with parties, some of whom were officials of the City, but such conversations were purely informal and were not regarded by the parties as being made in an official way. Moreover, on page 81 of the record, it is positively stated by the defendants’ witness George Kohn that the plans for the building proposed to be erected have never been…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re Zoning Variance of GillenScioto County Court of Common Pleas · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API