Mettling v. White

Ohio Court of Appeals

Mettling v. White

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 809, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 976

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 1927

DocketNo. 8518

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 809 (Mettling v. White) 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

Mettling v. White, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 809, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

VICKERY, J.

After having reviewed the evidence, and the arguments of counsel and examined the authorities, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief prayed for in the petition; that the Village of Rocky River was acting within the scope ■ of its authority and probably carrying out its duty to abate these water holes as nuisances, if they had become such, and we do not feel disposed to question the good faith or the right of the municipality where it has declared it a nuisance and passed the necessaiy legislation to abate such nuisance.

We, therefore, think that the plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed and whatever restraining order was allowed in this court will be dissolved at the costs of the plaintiff, and a journal entry may be prepared embodying these views.

(Sullivan, PJ. and Levine, J., concur.)

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

OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

VICKERY, J.

After having reviewed the evidence, and the arguments of counsel and examined the authorities, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief prayed for in the petition; that the Village of Rocky River was acting within the scope ■ of its authority and probably carrying out its duty to abate these water holes as nuisances, if they had become such, and we do not feel disposed to question the good faith or the right of the municipality where it has declared it a nuisance and passed the necessaiy legislation to abate such nuisance.

We, therefore, think that the plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed and whatever restraining order was allowed in this court will be dissolved at the costs of the plaintiff, and a journal entry may be prepared embodying these views.

(Sullivan, PJ. and Levine, J., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 809, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mettling-v-white-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack