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
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 5, 1965·No. 38727·Published

Opinion

Brown, Judge.

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.

Taft, C. J., Smith, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Schneider, JJ., concur. Smith, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Zimmerman, J.

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.