Within sixty days from the filing of the papers relating to the incorporation of a village by the board of county commissioners with the county recorder as provided by sections 707.08 and 707.09 of the Revised Code, any person interested may make application by petition to the court of common pleas setting forth the errors complained of or claiming the decision of the board is unreasonable or unlawful, and praying an injunction restraining the recorder from making the record and filing a copy of the record with the secretary of state pursuant to section 707.09 of the Revised Code.
Bd. of Trs. v. for Incorporation of Holiday City, 70 Ohio St. 3d 365 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 17דThe issue before this court is whether R.C. 707.11 and R.C. Chapter 2506 present potential avenues of review available to township trustees and individual property owners to challenge a board of county commissioners’ decision granting a petition for incorporation of a village.”
Watson v. Doolittle, 226 N.E.2d 771 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4דSection 707.11, Revised Code, dealing with injunctions to stop incorporation of villages, provides that “any person interested” may file a petition to enjoin such incorporation.”
In re Petition for Incorporation of the Vill. of Holiday City, 1994 Ohio 405 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 23דChapter 2506 appeal or an R.C. 707.11 proceeding—Township trustees may not challenge a board of county commissioners’ decision involving a petition for incorporation through either an R.”
Eckart v. Kroeger, 170 N.E.2d 435 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 9דThe time limit set out in Section 707.11, Revised Code, for the filing of a petition to enjoin a proposed village incorporation, has now expired.”
Hoye v. Schaefer, 157 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959). · cites it 3ד…on the grounds and by the authority of the provisions of §707.20 R. C., which incorporates within its provisions §§707.11 to 707.14 R. C., §707.20 R. C., provides: “Upon compliance with §§707.15 to 707.19 inclusive, R. C., the municipal corporation shall then be a village…”
Bd. of Trs. of Perry Twp. v. Cicchinelli, 520 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “We must consider the history of the pertinent statutory sections in order to better understand the intention of the legislature.”
In Re Incorporation of Vill. of Holiday City, 666 N.E.2d 327 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 18דOn October 22, 1991, appellant filed a “petition for injunction” in the Williams County Court of Common Pleas, pursuant to R.C. 707.11, which sought to restrain the county recorder from making and filing a copy of the record of the incorporation proceedings with the Secretary of…”
Toledo Edison Co. v. for Incorporation of Holiday City, 688 N.E.2d 571 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9דThe Court of Common Pleas, Williams County, Ohio, erred as a matter of law in holding that Toledo Edison had standing pursuant to R.C. 707.11 [October 23, 1995, Judgment Entry of the Court of Common Pleas, Williams County, Ohio].”
Baumhardt v. Mitchell, 152 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 4ד’ ’ The petition in the instant case was filed under authority of Section 707.11, Revised Code, as amended effective July 18, 1957.”
Baumhardt v. Mitchell, Recorder, 157 N.E.2d 898 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 3דThey further say that the provisions of the law, Section 707.11, Revised Code, with respect to the right of a court to question the inaccuracy of the boundaries, or that the limits of the proposed incorporation are unreasonably large or small, or that it is not right, just or…”
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.