Case law

Kneale v. Jennings

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 11 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1924

creation of a school district from one or more school districts or parts thereof, violates no provision of the Constitution as to uniformity of operation merely because the statute is silent as to the specific matters the board … The statute contemplates that the County Board, when so engaged, shall give full consideration to every essential element affecting the welfare of the pupils, the residents and the taxpayers of such districts.

State ex rel. Northern Ohio Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Barberton City School District Board of Education

128 Ohio St. 3d 539 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 17, 2011

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

729 W. 130th St., L.L.C. v. Hinckley Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals

2026 Ohio 595 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2026

See State v. Straley, 2014-Ohio-2139, ¶ 9; Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. … See Eastman v. State, 131 Ohio St. 1, 7 (1936); State v. Dorso, 4 Ohio St.3d 60, 62 (1983); Vossman v. AirNet Sys., Inc., 2020-Ohio-872, ¶ 17.

State ex rel. Lavelle v. Dailey

177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 25 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1964

It is upon the board of elections that this duty is specifically imposed. … No power is placed by this section in the board of education to review the action of the board of elections as to the sufficiency of the petition. No discretion is placed in the board of education.

State ex rel. Galvin v. Miller

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 4 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1962

Anderson, v. Duffy et al., Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, 174 Ohio St., 1 . Case dismissed. Weygandt, C. J., Zimmebman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Radcliff and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. Porterfield

30 Ohio St. 2d 163 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 24, 1972

With that treatment we are in accord, and we are satisfied, generally, that the decisions of the board in that respect are neither unreasonable nor unlawful.” In General Motors Corp. v. … Carmean, v. Board of Edn. (1960), 170 Ohio St. 415 , 165 N. E. 2d 918 ; Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1969), 20 Ohio St. 2d 125 , 254 N. E. 2d 8 ; Fyr-Fyter Co. v.

State v. Phipps

58 Ohio St. 2d 271 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1979

S. 809 , and Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976), 425 U. S. 748 , we find this case particularly inappropriate. … BrowN, P. BrowN and Holmes, JJ., concur. See Olmstead v. United States (1928), 277 U. S. 438, 478 , where Justice Brandéis, in his time-honored dissent, first judicially identified the basic right of privacy.

Doraty Rambler, Inc. v. Schneider

4 Ohio St. 2d 37 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1965

A. 1958); Southland Stores No. 3, Inc., v. Bowers, 2 Ohio Tax Cases, par. 201-009 (B. T. A. 1959). Appellant relies heavily on the case of Beerman Stores, Inc., v. Bowers, Tax Commr. (1962), 173 Ohio St. 59 . … The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and is, therefore, affirmed. Decision affirmed. Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Brown, JJ., concur.

King v. L. M. Southern Real Estate Co.

116 Ohio St. 185 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1927

Brown, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of L. M. Southern, deceased, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the persons of said defendants upon cross petition. … The nature of a cross-petition in error is discussed at length in the following cases: Mannix v. Purcell, 46 OS. 151 ; Bundy v. Ophir Iron Co., 35 OS. 80 ; Shinkle v. First Nat.

State ex rel. Canter v. Industrial Commission

28 Ohio St. 3d 377 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1986

In Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. … Brown, JJ., concur. Holmes, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur in judgment only.

Hale v. State

58 Ohio St. (N.S.) 676 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1898

Commonwealth v. Brown, 14 Gray, 419 . … And see Hart v. Cleis, 8 Johns., 33 ; Com. v. Hill, 5 Gratt., 682 .

State Ex Rel. City of Cleveland v. Sutula

127 Ohio St. 3d 131 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 21, 2010

Goudlock v. … BROWN, C.J., dissents. __________________ BROWN, C.J., dissenting. {¶ 26} Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction

Dialysis Clinic, Inc. v. Levin

127 Ohio St. 3d 215 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2010

Assn. v. … Ohio, Inc. v.

Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.

33 Ohio St. 2d 50 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1973

Iddings v. Board of Education of Jeferson County School District (1951), 155 Ohio St. 287, 290 . … L’Orange v. Medical Protective Co. ( C. A. 6, 1968), 394 F. 2d 57, 59 .

Greene County Agricultural Society v. Liming

89 Ohio St. 3d 551 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2000

The issue in that case was whether the county board was a “person” for purposes of R.C. 119.01(F) who could appeal a decision of the State Employment Relations Board. … Furthermore, the decision in Dunn v. Brown Cty. Agricultural Soc. (1888), 46 Ohio St. 93 , 18 N.E. 496 , relied upon by appellants, predates R.C.

State ex rel. Altman-Bates v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd. (Slip Opinion)

148 Ohio St. 3d 21 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 24, 2016

Because there is no statutory right to appeal a decision of the board on this question, mandamus is the appropriate remedy. State ex rel. Cydrus v. Ohio Pub. Emps. … . {¶ 22} To show that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus, appellants must establish that the board abused its discretion. State ex rel. Domhoff v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.

State ex rel. Bendo v. Board of Trustees of the Police Relief & Pension Fund

161 Ohio St. (N.S.) 237 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1954

Casey, v. Cull et al., Civil Service Commission, 151 Ohio St., 331 , 86 N. … The pension right of the relator had accrued at the time of his retirement and the board could not, by resolution of that date, change it so as to base relator’s pension upon a salary of a patrolman serving as such.

Drees Co. v. Hamilton Township

132 Ohio St. 3d 186 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 31, 2012

[v. … Granzow v. Montgomery Cty.

GC Net Lease @ (3) (Westerville) Investors, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)

154 Ohio St. 3d 121 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2018

SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-3856 GC NET LEASE @ (3) (WESTERVILLE) INVESTORS, L.L.C., APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. … Real-property valuation—R.C. 5713.03—Board of Tax Appeals’ decision vacated and cause remanded based on reasoning in Westerville City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

State ex rel. Williams v. Sulligan

20 Ohio St. 2d 8 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1969

This is an action in mandamus to compel the respondent board of elections to place relator’s name on the November 4, 1969, ballot as a candidate for the Youngstown board of education. … Reed, v. Malrick, 165 Ohio St. 483 ; State, ex rel. Allen, v. Board of Elections, 370 Ohio St. 19 .