Village of Fairlawn v. Preston

Ohio Supreme Court

Village of Fairlawn v. Preston

31 Ohio Law Rep. 58

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 19, 1965

Docket38922

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Ohio Law Rep. 58 (Village of Fairlawn v. Preston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Village of Fairlawn v. Preston, 31 Ohio Law Rep. 58 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Zimmerman, Judge.

Section 5511.01, Revised Code, involves primarily the establishment of a highway by the state Director of Highways in the manner prescribed, which highway may or may not be constructed, whereas Section 5521.01, Revised Code, involves primarily the actual construction of a highway by the director, and by that section the consent of the legislative authority of a municipality not in existence when the highway was established but in existence when the construction through it is about to take place, must be secured by the director. Where such consent is refused, the director must prepare a resolution declaring the necessity of such improvement as planned and serve a certified copy thereof upon the municipal authorities, who may then appeal to the Court of Common Pleas in the manner and on the basis provided.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Zimmerman, Judge.

Section 5511.01, Revised Code, involves primarily the establishment of a highway by the state Director of Highways in the manner prescribed, which highway may or may not be constructed, whereas Section 5521.01, Revised Code, involves primarily the actual construction of a highway by the director, and by that section the consent of the legislative authority of a municipality not in existence when the highway was established but in existence when the construction through it is about to take place, must be secured by the director. Where such consent is refused, the director must prepare a resolution declaring the necessity of such improvement as planned and serve a certified copy thereof upon the municipal authorities, who may then appeal to the Court of Common Pleas in the manner and on the basis provided.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Ohio Law Rep. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-fairlawn-v-preston-ohio-1965.