Case law

Yaple v. Morgan

2 Ohio C.C. 406 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1887

That the state has general control of police matters is well settled in the case of the Western College v. The City of Cleveland, 12 Ohio St., 375 -377. … It is, as held in the case of the fire department, Wheeler v.

State ex rel. Carew v. Lewis

20 Ohio C.C. 319 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

Section 2807, Revised Statutes; Lewis, Auditor, v. State ex rel. Mullikan, 59 Ohio St., 37 . … Co. v. Cappeller, 38 Ohio St., 560 ; State, ex rel. Poe, v. Raine, 47 Ohio St., 447 . It is further claimed that the testimony of Mr.

State ex rel. Cherrington v. Connor

5 Ohio C.C. 305 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1891

The enactment of the sections under review did not, and was not intended to, operate, as an appointment of the members of the board, as members of the board provided for by the act. … This is in-accord with the doctrine of The State ex rel. v. Michael Kerns, 24 Law Bulletin, 47 6, to appear in 47 Ohio St. Oharles S. Qherrington, for relator. Powell, Owen, Ricketts & Black and Geo. K.

State ex rel. Monnett v. McMillan

15 Ohio C.C. 163 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1897

The seventh division concerns boards of improvements, boards of administration and the like, and in no way affects the question before us. … State ex rel. v. Kearns, 47 O. S., 560.

N. Y. P. & O. R. R. v. Stubbings

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 699 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1888

V. & T. R. R. Co. v. Gardner, 45 Ohio St., 309 [13 N. E. Rep., 69]. Section 3283, Rev. … V. & T. R. R. Co. v.

State ex rel. Greenwald v. Hagerty

5 Ohio C.C. 22 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1890

board of county commissioners. … The majority of the court fully concur with the decision of the Superior Court of Cincinnati in General Term, as announced by Judge Force, in the case of the State of Ohio ex rel. v.

Kattman v. New Knoxville Sch. Dist.

24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 306 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1911

It is urged by counsel that the case of Young v. Rushylvania, 4 Circ. Dec. 3.19 ( 8 R. 75 ), however, renders inapplicable the reasoning, rather renders inapplicable the provisions of Sec. 4750 G. C. … the statute under consideration in Young v.

Mooney v. Richardson

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 56 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 16, 1908

Davies v. Land Invest. Co. 76 Ohio St. 407 [81 N. E. Rep. 755]. … Cincinnati v. James, 55 Ohio St. 180 [44 N. E. Rep. 925]. Decree accordingly. Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

Herrmann v. State ex rel. Delaney

11 Ohio C.C. 504 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1896

The board then was not authorized to contract with him on his bid. … This issue, we think, is warranted by thej'decisions of the Supreme Court in Boren & Guckes v. Com’rs Darke Co., 21 Ohio St. 311 ; Beaver v.Blind Asylum, 19 Ohio St. 97 , 108; American Clock Co. v.

State ex rel. Cline v. Cannon

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 236 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 10, 1909

V. McMahon, “Prosecuting Attorney.” After the filing of such writing the board adopted a resolution, which reads in part: “Now, therefore, be it resolved, That this board employ Jno. L. … above named may direct,” (that is, board of county-commissioners, board of equalization, decennial county board of revision and the board of review), or'“to which it or any of said officers, may be a party, and shall also

State ex rel. Meader v. Sullivan

15 Ohio C.C. 333 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1897

If they did state facts, which, if true, constituted neglect of duty, we *334 think the decision of the supreme court in State v. … That in our judgment the holding of the Supreme Court in the case before mentioned, State ex rel. v.

Slatmyer v. Springborn

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 89 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 24, 1903

In the case of Silberman et al v. … Reversing Slatmyer et al v. Springborn et al, 1 N. P. — N. S., 157, as to the constitutionality of the provision in question.

State ex rel. Herrick v. Searcy

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 83 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 12, 1909

It did not contemplate that, upon the selection of every new board of *85 public safety, a reorganization of tbe police department should follower necessitate. This seems to be the view in State v. … See opinion of Summers, J., in State v. Hall, 25 O. C. C. 361, 370 (2 N. S. 237, 246).

Springmyer v. State ex rel. Bowler

1 Ohio C.C. 501 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1886

It is also admitted that the board of public works have all the powers granted by the different sections of the statute to sewer commissioners and the board of public improvements. … OoppocJc, Cox & Gallagher, for Board. Kiitredge & Wilby, for Mrs. Bowler.

Hutchinson v. Lima

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 545 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1905

The functions of a public officer are clearly defined in State v. Jennings, 57 Ohio St. 415 [49 N. E. Rep. 404; 63 Am. St. Rep. 723 ]. … within the scope of their duties as such board.”

Strack v. Ratterman

18 Ohio C.C. 36 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

The petition is a long one, but the question for decision is this: Whether, when the board of administration, or its successor, the board of city affairs,' has prepared the necessary preliminary estimate, plans and specifications … Much reliance is placed by counsel on the decision of this-court in the case of Herrmann v. State, 11 O. C.

State ex rel. Mathis Bros. v. Cincinnati

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 832 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 8, 1905

To this petition the board of education files a general demurrer. … Counsel rely upon the case of Boren v. Darke Co.

State ex rel. Prosecuting Attorney v. Treasurer of German Township

2 Ohio C.C. 363 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1887

By order of the Board of Education. “O. P. Wilcox, Glerk. Jas. Wilcox, President.” … for the schools under its control.” “ Section 3995 (78 v. 10).

George W. Carmichael & Co. v. Mccourt

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 775 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1905

Carmichael & Co. v. Patrick McCourt and George W. Carmichael & Co. v. Daniel McCarry et al.] came into this court on appeal, and were tried together. … That case was affirmed without report in McClain v. McKisson, 54 Ohio St. 673 .

Knorr ex rel. City of Cincinnati v. Miller

5 Ohio C.C. 609 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1891

We do not understand the decision in the case of Bunning v. The Railway Company, page 323, 1 C. C. Rep., to be in conflict with this view. … only. “ Either such owners have not consented at all, in which case you cannot proceed further, or they have consented, in which case their consents inure to whoever is the lowest bidder, as was expressly decided in State v.