Legal Opinion
Krock v. Day
Cuyahoga County Probate Court
Decided June 28, 1966No. Nos. 666383, 667383, 667384, 667385 and 667788Published
1Opinion of the CourtMerrick, P. J.
The aforementioned eases came upon the docket of this court by the filing of a purported appeal from a spread of tentative assessments by the Cuyahoga County Board of County Commissioners for the construction of a sewer system to serve the easterly portion of the city of Westlake. An appeal to the Probate Court is provided for by virtue of Section 6117.09, Revised Code. Section 6117.10, Revised Code, provides for the method of perfecting such appeal by placing a limitation of time within which such appeal shall be commenced — in the following excerpt from that statute:
"* # gkaii orL or before…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City of Cuyahoga Falls v. BeckOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Hammond v. WinderOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Domito v. Village of MaumeeOhio Supreme Court · 1942
- Baxter v. Van HouterOhio Supreme Court · 1926
- Wagner v. Messner, Aud.Ohio Supreme Court · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.