State ex rel. Zsinka v. Cleveland

176 N.E.2d 331, 87 Ohio Law. Abs. 177, 19 Ohio Op. 2d 41, 1961 Ohio App. LEXIS 803
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided July 21, 1961·No. No. 25036·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The request for damages pursuant to Section 2731.11, Revised Code, is denied.

A writ of mandamus was issued after trial requiring the City of Cleveland to permit the relator to build a multi-family dwelling, having shown a clear legal right to same.

' Relator now seeks damages claimed to have been incurred by reason of the refusal of the City to issue the permit when the application was presented to the Building Commissioner.

This court unanimously comes to the conclusion that the [178] granting or refusing of a municipal license is an act coming within the exercise of the police power of the City and being in the exercise of a governmental function, the municipality is not liable in damages under Section 2731.11, Revised Code, for the wrongful issuance or refusal of a license.

See:

18 McQuillin “Municipal Corporations” 3rd Edition, 237, Section 53.37.

8 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, 277, Sec. 27.

Ohio, ex rel. Parrott et al, v. Board of Public Works, 36 Ohio St., 409.

James v. Toledo, 24 Ohio App., 268.

Kovachy, P. J., Skeel and Hurd, JJ., concur.

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

State ex rel. Zsinka v. Cleveland, 176 N.E.2d 331, 87 Ohio Law. Abs. 177, 19 Ohio Op. 2d 41, 1961 Ohio App. LEXIS 803 (Ohio Ct. App. 1961).

176 N.E.2d 331 (State ex rel. Zsinka v. Cleveland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

James v. Toledo (City)
157 N.E. 309 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1927)