Webster v. Serrott

Ohio Court of Appeals

Webster v. Serrott

218 N.E.2d 641, 7 Ohio App. 2d 67, 36 Ohio Op. 2d 156, 1966 Ohio App. LEXIS 420

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 19, 1966

Docket8386

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 218 N.E.2d 641 (Webster v. Serrott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Webster v. Serrott, 218 N.E.2d 641, 7 Ohio App. 2d 67, 36 Ohio Op. 2d 156, 1966 Ohio App. LEXIS 420 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Duffey, J.

Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. Appellants have requested an oral hearing. We consider such a hearing unnecessary in this ease.

The action commenced as one in injunction to prevent the *68 acceptance of an annexation of territory to the city of Columbus. The only step remaining to complete annexation was acceptance by the city council. The Common Pleas Court journalized an order dismissing the injunction action. No temporary injunction was then in effect. A certified copy of the court’s order was provided the city clerk. He proceeded to present the transcript and other papers to the council, and an ordinance accepting , the annexation was adopted.

Upon a review of the statutes, it is our opinion that the dismissal entry and lack of any restraining order removed any inhibition upon the right and power of the city council to pass an ordinance accepting the annexation. We consider the furnishing of a certified copy of the court order to be a sufficient compliance with Section 709.08, Revised Code. In any event, notice in the form provided for by that statute is not, in our opinion, jurisdictional or a prerequisite to the city council’s power to adopt an ordinance of acceptance. Accordingly, the case has become moot.

If appellee wishes to take the issues as to Section 709.08, Revised Code, to the Supreme Court, his rights will not be affected by the sustaining of the motion to dismiss. Dismissal is, of eourse, a final order and appealable.

An entry of dismissal specifying the grounds may be submitted.

Appeal dismissed.

Bryant, P. J., concurs. Dukky, J., dissents.

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

Duffey, J.

Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. Appellants have requested an oral hearing. We consider such a hearing unnecessary in this ease.

The action commenced as one in injunction to prevent the *68 acceptance of an annexation of territory to the city of Columbus. The only step remaining to complete annexation was acceptance by the city council. The Common Pleas Court journalized an order dismissing the injunction action. No temporary injunction was then in effect. A certified copy of the court’s order was provided the city clerk. He proceeded to present the transcript and other papers to the council, and an ordinance accepting , the annexation was adopted.

Upon a review of the statutes, it is our opinion that the dismissal entry and lack of any restraining order removed any inhibition upon the right and power of the city council to pass an ordinance accepting the annexation. We consider the furnishing of a certified copy of the court order to be a sufficient compliance with Section 709.08, Revised Code. In any event, notice in the form provided for by that statute is not, in our opinion, jurisdictional or a prerequisite to the city council’s power to adopt an ordinance of acceptance. Accordingly, the case has become moot.

If appellee wishes to take the issues as to Section 709.08, Revised Code, to the Supreme Court, his rights will not be affected by the sustaining of the motion to dismiss. Dismissal is, of eourse, a final order and appealable.

An entry of dismissal specifying the grounds may be submitted.

Appeal dismissed.

Bryant, P. J., concurs. Dukky, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 N.E.2d 641, 7 Ohio App. 2d 67, 36 Ohio Op. 2d 156, 1966 Ohio App. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-serrott-ohioctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack