Bay v. Borchers

15 Ohio Law. Abs. 226, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1269
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 27, 1933
DocketNo 13027
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 Ohio Law. Abs. 226 (Bay v. Borchers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bay v. Borchers, 15 Ohio Law. Abs. 226, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1269 (Ohio Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

[227]*227OPINION

By HAMILTON, PJ.

If under these facts there is any violation of the zoning ordinance it is purely a technical one.

While many ordinances of like character are uniformly upheld, the courts have never surrendered the right to examine individual cases in 'the application and enforcement of the ordinance on the question of unreasonable enforcement. In the case under consideration, while this court would uphold the validity of the zoning ordinance if that question were before us, we are of opinion that to enforce the technical language thereof in this case would be an unreasonable application and oppressive to the defendant, and would violate her constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Our conclusion is, that the injunction should be denied and the petition dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

RICHARDS and ROSS, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Martin Land Development Co. v. Clepper
174 N.E.2d 271 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Ohio Law. Abs. 226, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-v-borchers-ohioctapp-1933.