Bay v. Borchers

15 Ohio Law. Abs. 226, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1269
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided October 27, 1933·No. No 13027·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[227] OPINION

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

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

15 Ohio Law. Abs. 226 (Bay v. Borchers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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