History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bay v. Borchers
15 Ohio Law. Abs. 226
Ohio Ct. App.
1933
Check Treatment

*227OPINION

By HAMILTON, PJ.

If under these facts there is any violation of the zoning ordinance it is purely a technical one.

While many ordinances of like character are uniformly upheld, the courts have never surrendered the right to examine individual cases in 'the application and enforcement of the ordinance on the question of unreasonable enforcement. In the case under consideration, while this court would uphold the validity of the zoning ordinance if that question were before us, we are of opinion that to enforce the technical language thereof in this case would be an unreasonable application and oppressive to the defendant, and would violate her constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Our conclusion is, that the injunction should be denied and the petition dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

RICHARDS and ROSS, JJ, concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Bay v. Borchers
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Oct 27, 1933
Citation: 15 Ohio Law. Abs. 226
Docket Number: No 13027
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.