Howell v. Cooper

168 N.E. 757, 33 Ohio App. 287, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 454
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 24, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 168 N.E. 757 (Howell v. Cooper) 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
Howell v. Cooper, 168 N.E. 757, 33 Ohio App. 287, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 454 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Hamilton, J.

This case is here on appeal from the court of common pleas of Hamilton county.

The action instituted by plaintiff, Niles L. Howell, is one to enjoin the claimed violation of the Cincinnati zoning ordinances in the location and construction of an apartment building at the corner of Ash-land avenue and Locust street, which property immediately adjoins plaintiff’s lot, on which is located plaintiff’s residence.

The court of common pleas granted a permanent injunction. From that judgment the defendant, Myers T. Cooper, appeals.

The right of the plaintiff to maintain the action is not challenged here, as such right was determined *289 in the case of Pritz v. Messer, 112 Ohio St., 628, 149 N. E., 30. As we see it, the only question here is one of fact, whether the proposed construction of the apartment building violates the Cincinnati zoning ordinances.

The main question concerns the rear yard depth, as provided in the ordinances. The sections of the ordinances involved are 452-52 and 452-54, which read as follows:

“Section 452-52: In Residence ‘A’ Districts the least depth of the rear yard shall be at least 25 feet behind a one-story building or a one-story rear projection, and at least thirty feet behind a two or three-story building or a two or three-story rear projection. In Residence ‘B’ and ‘O’ Districts the least depths of any rear yard at the levels of the lowest window sills of the various stories shall be as follows:
bKri8m4vHx

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

Related

United States v. Iklas Davis
Third Circuit, 2022
Brown v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services
682 N.E.2d 1033 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)
DeBlasiis v. Bartell & Oliveto
18 A.2d 478 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Welton v. 40 East Oak St. Bldg. Corporation
70 F.2d 377 (Seventh Circuit, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 N.E. 757, 33 Ohio App. 287, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-cooper-ohioctapp-1929.