Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 519.24 (2026)

Actions instituted to prevent violations of zoning regulations - special counsel

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

September 17, 1957

Latest Legislation:

Senate Bill 403 - 102nd General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

In case any building is or is proposed to be located, erected, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, changed, maintained, or used or any land is or is proposed to be used in violation of sections 519.01 to 519.99, inclusive, of the Revised Code, or of any regulation or provision adopted by any board of township trustees under such sections, such board, the prosecuting attorney of the county, the township zoning inspector, or any adjacent or neighboring property owner who would be especially damaged by such violation, in addition to other remedies provided by law, may institute injunction, mandamus, abatement, or any other appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, enjoin, abate, or remove such unlawful location, erection, construction, reconstruction, enlargement, change, maintenance, or use. The board of township trustees may employ special counsel to represent it in any proceeding or to prosecute any actions brought under this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp., 690 N.E.2d 872 (Ohio 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp., 690 N.E.2d 872 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 14× “Thus, the issue of whether the property owners were parties or were in privity with parties to the prior administrative actions is of no importance.”

City of Willoughby Hills v. C. C. Bar's Sahara, Inc., 64 Ohio St. 3d 24 (1992). · cites it 3× “Essentially, the issue presented for our review in Kasper was “whether R.C. 519.24 provides a township zoning inspector or township board of trustees the right to appeal a decision of the board of zoning appeals to the court of common pleas.”

Kasper v. Coury, 555 N.E.2d 310 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 9× “More specifically, we are asked to determine whether R.C. 519.24 provides a township zoning inspector or township board of trustees the right to appeal a decision of the board of zoning appeals to the court of common pleas.”

Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp., 712 N.E.2d 784 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1998). · cites it 9× “Because of our disposition of this assignment of error, we concluded that we need not reach the merits of the second assignment of error.”

Monus v. Day, 2011-Ohio-3170. · cites it 4× “On appeal, Day raises eleven assignments of error which include: the failure to join an indispensable party; violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights; improper admission of evidence at trial; failure to proceed with a case that had been consolidated with the instant…”

Verbillion v. Enon Sand & Gravel, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-3850, 180 N.E.3d 638. · cites it 2× “{¶ 44} Thus, the statute requires property owners like Appellees to show that they would be specially damaged.”

Vermilion Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Novotny, 2024-Ohio-2946. · cites it 11× “{¶ 9} The complaint sought injunctive relief pursuant to R.C. 519.24. The township requested a preliminary and permanent injunction, cessation of business at the market until Novotny complies, and an order requiring Novotny to comply with Zoning Resolution, Section 17.”

Wilkins v. Harrisburg, 2015-Ohio-5472, 56 N.E.3d 320. · cites it 2× “4 In Loichot, the court examined whether plaintiff was a proper party to the action as an "adjacent or neighboring property owner" pursuant to R.C. 519.24 and Article 18 of the Plain Township Zoning Resolution.”

Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp., 81 Ohio St. 3d 247 (1998). · cites it 16× “seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to R.C. 519.24. The property owners alleged that Baycliffs planned to construct a marina on the island, and that use of the land in this manner was impermissible in an R-3 zoning district.”

Benton Twp. v. Rocky Ridge Dev., L.L.C., 2020-Ohio-4162. · cites it 4× “Third Assignment of Error {¶ 35} In its third assignment of error, Rocky Ridge argues the trial court erred in finding that Benton Township established by clear and convincing evidence that Rocky Ridge violated the BTZR.”

Barbeck v. Twinsburg Twp., 597 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1992). · cites it 2× “This court reversed on the grounds that: (1) the plaintiffs had no right to challenge the validity of the resolution pursuant to R.C. 519.24, and (2) a ruling upon R.C. 121.”

Baker v. Blevins, 833 N.E.2d 327 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2005). · cites it 2× “They also claim that the trial court should not have credited Riekers’s testimony because of the animosity between the parties and because Rierkers could not produce the calendars that he used for record-keeping.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.