Case law

111 Bar, Inc. v. Board of Liquor Control

165 Ohio St. (N.S.) 507 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1956

Slavens v. State Board of Real Estate Examiners

166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 285 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1957

Merchant v. North, 10 Ohio St., 251 . See State, ex rel. Cline, v. Trustees of Wilkesville Township, 20 Ohio St., 288 . … Merchant v. North, supra.

State Ex Rel. Board of Education v. Ray

145 Ohio St. 392 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1945

having an average daily attendance of less than one hundred eighty pupils, such amounts per day as will be sufficient to meet the increased cost per pupil due to small classes, to be determmed as follows: “If and when the board … one or more schools, each or any of which has an average daily attendance of less than one hundred eighty pupils, shall establish to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Public'Instruction and the state controlling board

Hillside Cemetery Ass'n v. Board of Park Commrs.

124 Ohio St. 663 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1931

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Rubino

94 Ohio St. 3d 127 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2002

Milligan of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”), to whom the matter had been referred. … Bar Assn. v. Rubino (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 466 , 721 N.E.2d 986 , and had been found in contempt in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v.

Sun Refining & Marketing Co. v. Brennan

31 Ohio St. 3d 306 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1987

Penney Co. (1986), 24 Ohio St. 3d 112, 113 , 24 OBR 304, 305, 493 N.E. 2d 959, 961 ; Chevalier v. Brown (1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 61, 63 , 17 OBR 64, 66, 477 N.E. 2d 623, 625 ; Besl Corp. v. Pub. Util. … Brown, JJ., concur.

Jefferson Area Teachers Ass'n v. Lockwood

69 Ohio St. 2d 671 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1982

Dayton Teachers Assn. v. Dayton Bd. of Edn. (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 127 , paragraph one of the syllabus. Therefore, we limit our inquiry to the propriety of the service fee provision. In Rehor v. … Brown, Sweeney and C. Brown, JJ., concur. Holmes and Krupansky, JJ., dissent. Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Edn. (1977), 431 U. S. 209 , settles all relevant constitutional questions.

Galvin v. Masonic Toledo Trust

34 Ohio St. 2d 157 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 23, 1973

Toledo Retirement Living v. Board of Tax Appeals (1971), 27 Ohio St. 2d 255 , 272 N. E. 2d 359 . … The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, being neither unreasonable nor unlawful, is affirmed. Decision affirmed. HeRbbbt, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Villa Park Ltd. v. Clark County Board of Revision

68 Ohio St. 3d 215 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1994

The second paragraph of the syllabus of Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark Cty. … See, also, Canton Towers, Ltd. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 4 , 3 OBR 302, 444 N.E.2d 1027 , and Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 56 , 543 N.E.2d 768 .

Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Stark County Board of Revision

65 Ohio St. 3d 290 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1992

Park Investment Co. v. … Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Speck v. Board of Elections

1 Ohio St. 3d 275 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1982

Since R.C. 3513.05 empowers the board of elections to certify candidates and R.C. 3501.11 authorizes the Secretary of State to become involved in the process only if there is a tie vote, this 3-0 vote of the board certifying … Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and Krupansky, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Stewart v. State Employment Relations Board

108 Ohio St. 3d 203 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2006

Grady v. State Emp. … Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp.

State ex rel. Chatfield v. Board of Elections

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 93 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1964

The Board of Elections rejected relator’s declaration because he had not signed his name on the line at the end of the declaration and before the affidavit. … In this action, originating in this court, he seeks an order requiring that board to place his name on the ballot. Relator contends that his typed name was a signature.

Board of Education v. Mahoning County Budget Commission

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 294 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1963

The Board of Tax Appeals held that the reduction should be affected by all changes in the real, public utility and personal property duplicates excepting, because on the specific provisions of Section 5705.331, new construction … The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals being unlawful is reversed. Decision reversed. Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert, and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Board of Education v. State ex rel. Thudium

81 Ohio St. (N.S.) 541 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1910

Buckman v. State ex rel. Board of Education

81 Ohio St. (N.S.) 171 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1909

valuation of less than one hundred thousand dollars, shall not constitute a village school district; provided at any general election the proposition to dissolve or organize such village school district be submitted by the board … error in the present case, that the last proviso found in'Section 3888, Revised Statutes, to-wit: “provided at any general election the proposition to dissolve or organize such village school district be submitted by the board

State ex rel. Winterfeld v. Board of Elections

167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 531 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 2, 1958

State Ex Rel. Morgan v. Board of Trustees

152 Ohio St. 195 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1949

Those sections relate only either to personnel of the board of trustees or to the *197 duties of the society as custodian of memorial and historical properties. … common-law definition was the genesis of Section 14 of the Act of March 9,1835 (33 Ohio Laws, 57), and Section 12283, General Code, which now defines mandamus as “a writ issued, in the name of the state, to * * * a corporation, board

New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Board of Education

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 711 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1926

Faust v. State ex rel. Board of Education

103 Ohio St. (N.S.) 271 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1921

On the first Monday in June, 1920, the board of education of the school district submitted to the budget commission its annual budget for the year 1921, setting forth in itemized form an estimate of the amount of money needed … Both of the special levies authorized by a vote of the electors, the one in 1917, of one mill, and the one in 1920, of two- mills, were included in the estimates submitted by the board of education, the action of the budget