Case law

State ex rel. Strimple v. Bingham

14 Ohio C.C. 245 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1897

This jurisdiction, however, has been twice, at least, exercised by the supreme court of the state: The State on the relation of Attorney General v. … It is said, however, that in the case of Ohio v.

State ex rel. Frease v. Kreighbaum

9 Ohio C.C. 619 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1895

That the Adjutant-General of the state of Ohio has served upon the Board of County Commissioners of Stark county formal written notice that the quarters now being provided by said board are far from satisfactory, and that … We will refer to the recent ease of Wasson et al. v. The Commissioners, 49 Ohio St. 622 . This court considered and passed upon the question arising in that case at a recent term in Wayne county.

Ransom v. Potter

22 Ohio C.C. 388 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1891

The board of equalization reduced this valuation to $24,000; and these lots went upon the duplicate at that valuation; making an addition or difference between $24,000, the valuation placed by the board of equalization upon … The statute as it here stands was passed upon, its prbper construction considered and determined, by the supreme court ,in the case of Mitchell v.

Mill Creek Valley Street Railway Co. v. Village of Carthage

18 Ohio C.C. 216 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

In Brobst v. … Board of Supervisors, Logan Co., v. The City of Lincoln, 81 Ill., 156 ; Thd Union Depot Company v. The City of St. Louis, 76 Mo., 393 ; Grant v. City of Davenport, 18 Iowa, 180 , 187, 188; The City of Atlanta v.

Dixon v. Sub-District No. 5

3 Ohio C.C. 517 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1888

Ratcliff v. Teters, 27 Ohio St. 66 , 80, 81; King v. Kenny, 4 Ohio 79, 82, 83 ; Mayberry v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 161 ; 10 East. 350. … Railroad Company v.

Commissioners v. State ex rel. Alter

12 Ohio C.C. 200 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1896

Our Supreme Court, in the case of the Board of County Commissioners of Hamilton County v. The State of Ohio ex rel. … And the *202 additional provision to which I refer is this, “said Board of Administration or Board of City Affairs, may include the ■ present width of the sidewalk along the present south side of Eighth street from Eggleston

Schindler v. Lewis

16 Ohio C.C. 348 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 15, 1898

The Board of Supervisors of the city of Cincinnati, acting as the City Annual Board of Equalization, added this value in 1896, and it is claimed that the same was made without notice to the plaintiff, and hence an injunction … The case of Ferrine v. Parker, Receiver, 34 N. J.

Lewis v. State ex rel. Harrison

21 Ohio C.C. 410 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

these county officers who each became ex officio members of the decennial board; citing Henderson v. … State, 51 Cal. 577 ; Crossman v. Nightengall, 1 Nev. 323 ; People v. Durick, 20 Cal. 94 ; Paulo v. Board of Auditors, 74 Mich., 129 .

Cowen v. McGoron

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 590 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 6, 1909

To some extent the title was thereby drawn in question; but this is permissible under the cases of Brown v. Burdick, 25 Ohio St. 260 , 270; Burton Tp. (Tr.) v. Tuttle, 30 Ohio St. 62 , 66. … A like judgment will be entered in the case of Green v. McGoron, No. 4803. Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

Bacon v. Noble

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 49 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1900

The proceedings sought to be affected by the action of this court originated before the board of county commissioners of this county upon a petition which reads as follows: The petition is addressed to the board of county … See Riverside Rubber Co. v. Milan Manf’g Co. Also Sec. 5302, Rev. Stat.

Neave Building Co. v. Brooks

9 Ohio C.C. 151 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

The Heave Building Company v. R. B. Brooks, Treas. “ Section 1038. . … Nor do we think that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Poe v. Raine, 47 Ohio St., has any bearing on the question under discussion.

McIntyre's v. Garlick

8 Ohio C.C. 416 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1894

Brown v. Moore, 32 Mich. 254 ; White v. Herman, 51 Ill. 243 ; Pa. R. Co. v. Bunnell, 81 Pa. St. 414; 5 A. & E. E. L. 65. … Rep. 388, where, in an action on an account for boarding and washing, an instruction to the jury that, “as to matters of this nature, such as boarding and washing, which are within the common knowledge and experience of all

State ex rel. Miller v. Brady

16 Ohio C.C. 509 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1898

board. … (State ex rel. v. Baker, 55 Ohio St., 1 .) Counsel for the defendant relies on the case of Hayes & Sons v. City of Cleveland, 55 Ohio St., 117 . The opinion begins on page 123.

Turner v. City of Toledo

15 Ohio C.C. 627 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1898

Roberts v. Cincinnati, Superior Court, Gen’l. Term, 5 Am. Law Rec., 73 . … The case of Rae v.

State ex rel. Marvin v. Withrow

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 215 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 6, 1909

It is further urged that the relator has estopped himself by his conduct in participating under the law in the reorganization of the board. We think this proposition- cannot be maintained. Mt. Vernon v. … Rep. 783 ], and the leading case of Turnipseed v. Hudson, 50 Miss. 429 [ 19 Am. Rep. 15 ].

Mt. Adams & Eden Park Inclined Plane R. R. v. Isaacs

18 Ohio C.C. 177 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

Co. v. Gardner, 45 Ohio St., 309 . … Co. v.

Jones v. Wood

9 Ohio C.C. 560 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1895

This is the docrtine of Morris v. … Again, Doe v.

State ex rel. McKenzie v. Hyman

22 Ohio C.C. 213 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

Klaue v. Barrett, Director of Police, ante, 22 O. C. C. 104. No question is made here that the charges are not sufficiently specific. The rules which, it is said, were violated, are No. 15 and No. 23 respectively. … boards that, are created for private purposes for the execution of private objects, and boards that are public in their nature and exist by virtue of statute for the execution of public power.

Mack, Stadler & Co. v. Great Western Despatch

3 Ohio C.C. 36 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1888

The case of Garrott v. … Di ck v. Railroad Co., 38 Ohio St. 389 .

Sherard v. Lindsay

13 Ohio C.C. 315 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1896

In Cameron v. … Louis Ry Co. v.