Case law

Board of Trustees v. Reid

78 Ohio St. (N.S.) 424 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 12, 1908

Shafer v. Board of Trustees

83 Ohio St. (N.S.) 443 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1910

Board of Commissioners v. Denzer

84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 445 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1911

Griffiths v. Board of Commissioners

121 Ohio St. 632 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1930

Board of Education v. Campbell

110 Ohio St. 48 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1924

A discussion of the legislation creating the county board of education and defining its jurisdiction is found in County Board of Education of Hancock County v. Boehm, 102 Ohio St., 292 , 131 N. … This court has heretofore recognized the superior jurisdiction of the county board in the matter of transferring territory and the effects thereof. In the case of County Board of Education of Paulding County v.

Delmond v. Board Investors Co.

148 Ohio St. 301 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1947

The judgment of the Court of Appeal^ is affirmed on the. authority of the case of Bauman v. Guckenberger, Aud., ante, 292, this day decided. Judgment affirmed. Weygandt, C.

McGwinn v. Board of Education

147 Ohio St. 259 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1946

Ginn v. Board of County Commissioners

58 Ohio St. (N.S.) 693 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1898

Farrand v. State Medical Board

152 Ohio St. 429 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1949

Jackson v. Board of Education

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 789 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1926

Section 3812, General Code, confers upon a municipality general authority to levy assessments for streett improvements again'st property within such corporation belonging to a board of education and being used for school … In the event of failure of shell board of education to pay an assessment so levied, an action may be brought by the municipal corporation against such board-of education to recover the amount of such assessment.

Board of Agriculture v. Brittain

98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 461 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1918

Brittain, v. Board of Agriculture, 95 Ohio St., 276 , *462 and State, ex rel. Taylor, v. Cowen, 96 Ohio St., 277. Judgment affirmed. Nicitols, C. J., Newman, Matthias, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Wilkins v. Board of Education

80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 717 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1909

Board of Commissioners v. Azbell

81 Ohio St. (N.S.) 503 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1909

Board of Education v. Woolum

156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 281 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1951

Hughes v. Board of Education

13 Ohio St. 336 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1862

This question, and this case, we think, is, in effect, decided by the case of Rider v. Lynch, 8 Ohio St. Rep. 347 . … Any other construction of the provisions of the school act would introduce conflict between the township boards and the local directors of the sub-districts, and contravene the evident policy of the act.

Shields v. Board of Education

67 Ohio St. (N.S.) 501 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1902

Root v. Board of Education

52 Ohio St. (N.S.) 589 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1895

Field v. Commissioners, 36 Ohio St., 476 . … There is, then, no difference in principle between this statute and the one held invalid in Field v. Commissioners .

Winkleman v. Board of Trustees

68 Ohio St. (N.S.) 645 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1903

Finch v. Board of Education

30 Ohio St. (N.S.) 37 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1876

On this point the principle settled in the case of “the Board of Commissioners of Hamilton County v. J. W. Mighels,” 7 Ohio St. 109 , fully exonerates the defendant as a quasi corporation from common law liability. … The ease of Biglow v.

Cupp v. Board of Commissioners

19 Ohio St. (N.S.) 173 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1869

The act to establish boards of county commissioners (S. & C. 543, sec. 9) makes a “majority” of the board of county commissioners “ a quorum,” and authorizes them (sec. 1) to do and perform “ all such duties as now are, or … To require in such cases personal notice to the owners, would, in our judgment, be quite as unreasonable, as to require that owners of lands should, as was said in the case of Miller v.