Case law

Bogart v. Cox

4 Ohio C.C. 289 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1890

It must be conceded under the*decision in the case of Courson, ex 'r v. … One of the clearest and most explicit cases we have seen on this point is that of Vaugh v. Hankinson’s Adm’r, 55 N. J.

Stewart v. Logan County

2 Ohio C.C. 134 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1887

And, as was held in the case of Shepard v. Commissioners of Darke County, 8 Ohio St., 354 , and re-affirmed in the case of State ex rel. Gerke v. … We are sustained in this view by the case of the Commissioners of Clermont County v. Robb et al., 5 Ohio, and the case of the Commissioners of Belmont County v. Zeigelhofer, 38 Ohio St.

Ampt ex rel. City of Cincinnati v. City of Cincinnati

21 Ohio C.C. 300 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

The board of administration was to have supervision of all work of construction,and to designate what portions of the street shall be broken up at a time, and at what and how many points the work shall be carried on. … The board of administration or its successor were authorized to call upon the police department to enforce any of the provisions of the ordinance. W. M. Ampt, for Plaintiff, Phillip C. Swing • and Charles J.

Adkins v. Toledo

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 417 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 4, 1905

Cleveland v. Wick, 18 Ohio St. 303 , overruled.” … And the case to which we are also cited in Dayton v. Bauman, 66 Ohio St. 379 [64 N. E. Rep. 433], is in harmony with this and goes no further.

Tedtman v. Hancock

1 Ohio C.C. 238 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1885

This is substantially the rule of Brown v. Myers, 40 Ohio St., 99 . A “ thief” is defined by Bouvier to be “ one who has been guilty of larceny.”

State ex rel. Scobie v. Cass

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 208 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 28, 1910

The case of Cincinnati v. Davis, 58 Ohio St. 225 [50 N. E. Rep. 918], lends substantial support to this view. In that case the proper board of the city adopted a resolution to improve an alley of a certain width. … (Comrs.) v. Greene, 40 Ohio St. 318 , conflicts with this view, it is not approved. In Raymond v.

State ex rel. Vail v. Craig

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 557 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 14, 1900

In the case of Matthews Manufacturing Co. v. Trenton Lamp Company, 73 Fed. Rep. 212, 215, where a construction is given to sec 4929, U. S. Rev. … In Swartzell v.

Hollingsworth v. Cincinnati Street Railway Co.

21 Ohio C.C. 536 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1901

We think the court erred in directing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff stepped upon the running board of defendant’s car, in a proper manner, and that while attempt … Brooks v. Mt. Auburn Ry. 29 W. L. B., 50. One of the most important rules of law touching the rights and duties of a passenger is that he shall not permit bis body to project beyond the. range of the oar.

Thatcher v. City of Toledo

19 Ohio C.C. 311 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1899

Section 2329 is the section relating to the construction of sidewalks, and provides: “When the council, board of improvements, board of public works, board of city affairs, or board of administration, as the case may be, … “But in Upington v.

McCoy v. Allen

9 Ohio C.C. 607 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1895

C. 1, had not the holding in that case been repudiated in the opinion in Perkins v. Scott, 9 O. C. C. 207. In Brown v. … Scott is a mere dictum, to which Judge Day dissented, yet we have thought it best, while approving the decision in Brown v.

Saunders v. State

2 Ohio C.C. 475 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1887

Johnson v. Wilcox, Clerk, 11 Ohio St. 326 , and State ex rel. Werden v. Williams, Clerk, 29 Ohio St. 161 , *481 as authorities supporting this claim of the defendant in error. … Sharp v. Trustees, 2 Ohio, 108; Church v. Trustees, 6 Ohio, 445. Kellogg & Jones, for plaintiff. W. S. Thomas, for defendant.

In re the Annexation of Certain Territory to the Township of Newburgh

15 Ohio C.C. 78 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1897

Section 1651 provides that the board of trustees of the *81 hamlet shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the streets and alleys of such municipality. … board having, as already noted, exclusive ■control of the streets and alleys.

Shehy v. Cunningham

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 311 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1907

Brown v. Whaley et al, 58 O. S., 654; Groves el al v. Groves, 65 O. S., 442. … Cowden v. Hugh T. Cowden et al, 7 C. C. — N. S., 277, decided by this coiArt at the October term, 1905, is contrary to the holding hoav made. So it is.

Dickason v. Grafton Sav. Bank Co.

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 357 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 8, 1905

This precise question was determined by the Supreme Court in the case of Cobb v. Scofield, 66 Ohio St. 680 [65 N. E. Rep. 1127], on authority of Younglove v. Lime Co. 49 Ohio St. 663 [33 N. E. Rep. 234] and Bronson v. … The case of Medill v.

Cincinnati & Dayton Railway Co. v. Miami & Erie Canal Transportation Co.

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 117 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1903

The Cincinnati & Dayton Railway Company claims to be where it is by virtue of a grant from the State Board of Public Works. … Joy v. St. Louis, 180 U. S., 1 -50; Conger v. N. Y. Co., 120 N. Y., 29 .”

State ex rel. Monnett v. Cincinnati & Hamilton Electric Street Railway Co.

19 Ohio C.C. 79 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1899

Monnett, Attorney General of the State of Ohio, plaintiff, v. the Cincinnati & Hamilton Electric Street Bailway Company, defendant. . “Petition in Quo Warranto.” F. S. … Such seems to have been the holding of the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county in the case of The Broadway & Newburg Co. v.

Aydelott v. City of Cincinnati

11 Ohio C.C. 11 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1893

But as the board of administration and the board of legislation of this city constitute the legislative body of the city, and can at pleasure alter or repeal any ordinance merely providing for the manner in which this legislative … As was said by Judge Longworth, in the decision of the case of the State v.

Platt v. Toledo

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 305 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 18, 1908

of service given for the construction and extension of a filtration plant, the facts concerning which are recited in Yaryan v. … On page 280 of the opinion announced by my associate, Judge Parker, in Yaryan v.

Mills, Spellmire & Co. v. Whitmore

22 Ohio C.C. 467 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

S.; Evermann v. Schmitt, 53 Ohio St., 174 , 187; Davis, Receiver, v. Sharp, 2 W. L. M.,40; Galvin v. Albers, 9 Dec., 279, 281; Mansfield v. Woods, 11 Dec. (Re.), 761; Wadsworth v. Davis, 13 Ohio St., 123 ; 131 Bangs v. … Y., 477 ; Doane v. Insurance Co., 11 Atl. Rep., 739 , 742; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S., 56, 174, 187 ; Davis, Receiver v. Sharp, 2 W. L. M., 40; Galvin v. Albers, 6 Nisi Prius, 273; Mansfield v. Woods, 29 W. L.

State ex rel. Rupp v. Rust

4 Ohio C.C. 329 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1890

Attorney General v. Wm. … Attorney-General v.