Opinion

Saunders v. Clark County Zoning Department

  • 66 Ohio St. 2d 259
  • 20 Ohio Op. 3d 244
  • 421 N.E.2d 152
  • 1981 Ohio LEXIS 506
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
May 27, 1981
Status
Published
Author
Holmes
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
Cited by
78 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.1%

holding that a foster home for delinquent juveniles constituted a single housekeeping unit for the purposes of the Clark County Zoning Resolution where the applicants were the licensed foster parents of the juveniles and all parties lived together in the applicants’ residence

How later courts described this case

  • holding that a foster home for delinquent juveniles constituted a single housekeeping unit for the purposes of the Clark County Zoning Resolution where the applicants were the licensed foster parents of the juveniles and all parties lived together in the applicants’ residence

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Syrianoudis v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 185 Ohio App. 3d 204 (2009)

    Saunders and Fliotsos are distinguishable because the protesting parties were asserting their rights as foster parents to maintain their household.
    Ohio Court of AppealsNov 20, 2009Read it

The opinion

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. Principles of law as pronounced by the highest court of the state should remain the case law of the state unless sound reason, or changing patterns and needs of the times, dictate a modification in order to best serve the public. Although I am in agreement with this basic premise of stare decisis, I also accept the principle that our common law should be flexible to meet our current public and professional needs. But the flexibility effected by this decision, which, in effect, overrules syllabus law as pronounced by this court only nine months ago, in Garcia v. Siffrin (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 259 , transforms the law of stare decisis into that which assumes a stability not unlike a revolving door. It would seem that the law of this state will now be governed by what might be the personnel of the court, or the panel hearing and writing upon a case, or both, at any given point in time.

Locher, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.