State ex rel. Spiccia v. Abate
31 Ohio Law Rep. 43
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State ex rel. Spiccia v. Abate. Read the opinion of the Court — 2 Ohio St. 2d 129 →
Opinion
What constitutes a “restaurant” as opposed to a “drive-in restaurant” for the purpose of determining the permitted use of property under a zoning classification in which those terms are not otherwise defined is determined by considering the common and ordinary meaning of those terms, liberally construing them in favor of the permitted use so as not to extend the restrictions of the ordinance to any limitation of use not therein clearly prescribed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State ex rel. Spiccia v. Abate, 31 Ohio Law Rep. 43 (Ohio 1965).
31 Ohio Law Rep. 43 (State ex rel. Spiccia v. Abate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.