City of Cincinnati v. Taft

Ohio Circuit Courts

City of Cincinnati v. Taft

19 Ohio C.C. 649

DecidedOctober 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ohio C.C. 649 (City of Cincinnati v. Taft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Cincinnati v. Taft, 19 Ohio C.C. 649 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

SWING, J.

In our opinion the demurrer-to the petition, should be sustained for the reason that the questions here presented have all been passed upon by the supreme court of the state in the cases involving the constitutionality of the act under which the Cincinnati Southern Railway was built and the different acts supplemental thereto. All these acts have been held by that court to be constitutional. We see nothing in this act which involves any constitutional question not involved in [650]*650those passed upon by the supreme court. Any discussion of this question in this court would therefore seem not only to be fruitless, but out of plaoe. The rule of stare decisis applies.

Ellis O. Kinhead and Wade Ellis, for the City. W. M. Kemper and Alfred C.-Cassatt, for the Taxpayer. E, A. Ferguson, J. R. Sayler and W. T. Porter, for the Defendants.

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

SWING, J.

In our opinion the demurrer-to the petition, should be sustained for the reason that the questions here presented have all been passed upon by the supreme court of the state in the cases involving the constitutionality of the act under which the Cincinnati Southern Railway was built and the different acts supplemental thereto. All these acts have been held by that court to be constitutional. We see nothing in this act which involves any constitutional question not involved in [650]*650those passed upon by the supreme court. Any discussion of this question in this court would therefore seem not only to be fruitless, but out of plaoe. The rule of stare decisis applies.

Ellis O. Kinhead and Wade Ellis, for the City. W. M. Kemper and Alfred C.-Cassatt, for the Taxpayer. E, A. Ferguson, J. R. Sayler and W. T. Porter, for the Defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ohio C.C. 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cincinnati-v-taft-ohiocirct-1899.