Legal Opinion

City of Wapakoneta v. Helpling

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1939No. 27197PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The legal questions involved in this action are: (1) Does' the city solicitor of the relator city, under the facts of this case, have authority to institute this action under favor of Section 4313, General.Code! (2) May the Court of Appeals'in a mandamus action, on consideration of motions by the respondents to strike out substantial portions of the petition, sua sponte strike the petition itself from the files and quash the alternative writ of mandamus, when the court finds that the relator is without legal capacity to sue; that none of the defendants owes any duty the performance of which…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State Ex Rel. Nead v. NolteOhio Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Grendell v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Brown v. OwenWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Brown v. OwenWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  4. State Ex Rel. City of Middletown v. City Commission of MiddletownOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Finn v. Wayne Tp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API