Legal Opinion
State v. City of Bowling Green
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 26, 1974No. 73-182PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPaul W. Beowu, J.
The “property” interest which every state holds in its wildlife has been explicitly recognized by tbe United States Supreme Court on numerous occasions. The most extended discussion appears in Geer v. Connecticut (1896), 161 U. S. 519. See, also, Toomer v. Witsel (1948), 334 U. S. 385; Lacosta v. Dept. of Conservation (1924), 263 U. S. 545; McCready v. Virginia (1876), 94 U. S. 391; Martin v. Waddell (1842), 41 U. S. 367.
The common law in Ohio has consistently recognized the trust doctrine and that it is predicated upon the property interest which the state holds in such wildlife as a trustee…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Toomer v. WitsellSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Geer v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Martin v. Lessee of WaddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- McCready v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Krause v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1972
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- City of Galveston v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 2007
- Board of Education v. Mayor of RiverdaleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Attorney General v. HermesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
- Bachynsky v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1988
- Department of Fisheries v. GilletteCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.