Amherst Builders Ass'n v. City of Amherst
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether a municipality has the authority to exact from a new user of its sewage system a charge which exceeds the administrative cost to the city of making the connection. In answering this question in the negative, the Court of Common Pleas relied heavily on its interpretation of State, ex rel. Waterbury Development Co., v. Witten (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 412. While the village therein, at page 413, had argued, as does appellee herein, that the purpose of a tap-in fee was “to apportion the cost of the***system equitably between prior users and new…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Airwick Industries, Inc. v. Carlstadt Sewerage AuthoritySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1970
- State Ex Rel. Gordon v. TaylorOhio Supreme Court · 1948
- Britt v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Associated Homebuilders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of LivermoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Pfau v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1943
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 1986
- Home Builders Ass'n v. City of BeavercreekOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- City of Marion v. BaioniSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
- Home Builders Assn. of Dayton & the Miami Valley v. BeavercreekOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Building Industry Ass'n of Cleveland & Suburban Counties v. City of WestlakeOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.