# Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy District

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 7, 1971 · 27 Ohio St. 2d 102

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754709

## Case

- **Full name:** Dorrian, Columbus City Treasurer v. Scioto Conservancy District
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 7, 1971
- **Citations:** 27 Ohio St. 2d 102; 56 Ohio Op. 2d 58; 271 N.E.2d 834; 1971 Ohio LEXIS 454
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schneider
- **Judges:** Cobeigan, Cook, Corbigan, Duncan, Eleventh, Heebebt, Leach, Neill, Schneider, Steen
- **Cited by:** 287 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754709

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating the "statutory use of the word 'may' is generally construed to make the provision * * * optional, permissive, or discretionary," while use of the word " 'shall' is usually interpreted to make the provision in which it is contained mandatory"
- holding that “statutory use of the word ‘may’ is generally construed to make the provision in which it is contained optional, permissive, or discretionary.”
- holding that the word “ ‘ “may” denotes the granting of discretion’ ”

## Opinion text

Schneider, J.,
dissenting. As I see it, the word “may” in the statutes refers to an option as to the manner of payment. I can see no discretion as to whether or not the debt incurred shall be paid.
CoRbigan, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754709. Public record. Not legal advice.