State ex rel. Stanton v. Zangerle

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 321

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State ex rel. Stanton v. Zangerle. Read the opinion of the Court — 117 Ohio St. 436 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 5, 1926·No. No. 19755·Published

Opinion

The petition alleges that the plaintiff Edwards C. Stanton is prosecuting attorney for Cuyahoga County and that John A. Zangerle is auditor of said county; that the auditor has allowed many corporations to file personal property tax returns which recite the personal property returned to be in the Village of Beechwood, wherein in fact said property is located in Cleveland and should therefore be so returned, and that the auditor knowing these facts to be true has allowed this custom to continue.

It is prayed that a writ of Mandamus be issued compelling the auditor to correct the personal tax duplicates of Beechwood and Cleve[322]*322land to conform with the existing facts.

Attorneys — E. C. Stanton and H. E. Parsons for State ex; H. E. Cuyler for Zangerle; all of Cleveland.

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

It is prayed that a writ of Mandamus be issued compelling the auditor to correct the personal tax duplicates of Beechwood and Cleve[322]*322land to conform with the existing facts.

Attorneys — E. C. Stanton and H. E. Parsons for State ex; H. E. Cuyler for Zangerle; all of Cleveland.

State ex rel. Stanton v. Zangerle, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 321 (Ohio 1926).

Pincite

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 321 (State ex rel. Stanton v. Zangerle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.