(A) A municipal corporation may petition the board of county commissioners to annex contiguous territory owned only by the municipal corporation, a county, or the state. The clerk of the board shall cause the petition to be entered upon the board's journal at its next regular session. This entry shall be the first official act of the board upon the petition. Proceedings on the petition shall be conducted under this section to the exclusion of any other provisions of this chapter except for sections 709.014, 709.14, 709.15, 709.20, and 709.21 of the Revised Code.
(B) If the only territory to be annexed is contiguous territory owned by a municipal corporation, the board of county commissioners, by resolution, shall grant the annexation. The annexation shall be complete upon the entry upon the journal of the board of the resolution granting the annexation.
(C) If the only territory to be annexed is contiguous territory owned by a county, the board of county commissioners, by resolution, may grant or deny the annexation. The annexation shall be complete upon the entry upon the journal of the board of a resolution granting the annexation.
(D) If the only territory to be annexed is contiguous territory owned by the state and the director of administrative services has filed a written consent to the granting of the annexation with the board of county commissioners, the board, by resolution, shall grant the annexation. The annexation shall be complete upon the entry upon the journal of the board of a resolution granting the annexation.
(E) The board of county commissioners shall act upon a petition for annexation filed under this section within thirty days after receipt of the petition.
(F) No appeal in law or in equity shall be allowed from the granting of an annexation under this section.
(G) When a municipal corporation purchases real property below an appraised fair market value and sells or agrees to sell the property back to the person that sold it to the municipal corporation, an annexation of that property completed under this section shall be void, and the annexed property shall become part of the township from which it was annexed, if it still exists. If the township no longer exists, the board of county commissioners shall attach the annexed territory to another township.
(H) Territory annexed under this section shall not be excluded from the township under section 503.07 of the Revised Code.
State ex rel. City of Painesville v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 757 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 22ד16, which governs petitions for annexation of contiguous property owned by a municipal corporation, provides: “(A) When a petition for the annexation of contiguous territory by a municipal corporation is presented to the board of county commissioners, proceedings shall be had in…”
Bd. of Trs. v. City of Centerville, 602 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 23דR.C. 709.16 provides with respect to annexation petitions by a municipal corporation that: “(A) When a petition for the annexation of contiguous territory by a municipal corporation is presented to the board of county commissioners, *229 proceedings shall be had in all respects,…”
State ex rel. Painesville v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2001 Ohio 1609 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 22ד16, which governs petitions for annexation of contiguous property owned by a municipal corporation, provides: “(A) When a petition for the annexation of contiguous territory by a municipal corporation is presented to the board of county commissioners, proceedings shall be had in…”
Bd. of Commissioners v. City of Lebanon, 540 N.E.2d 242 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 3דThe central issue before us in this case is whether the *190 amended provisions of R.C. 709.16, effective June 7,1986 (H.B. No.”
State ex rel. City of Toledo v. Bd. of Commissioners, 513 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 26דThe board of commissioners, Maumee, and Monclova Township, however, argue that the board of commissioners had a clear legal duty to refuse to accept for filing Toledo’s annexation petition because of the pending Maumee-Monclova Township merger petitions and the provisions of R.”
Penn v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 756 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Ohio 1990). · cites it 2ד2d 242 (1989) (construing amendment to Ohio Rev.Code § 709.16 effective June 7, 1986); State ex rel.”
Toll v. Schaeffer, 177 N.E.2d 529 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 4דSection 709.16, Revised Code, provides that when a petition for annexation of contiguous territory by a municipality is presented to the board of county commissioners, proceedings shall be had in all respects, so far as applicable, as are required by Sections 709.”
Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Grafton, 2021 Ohio 3446 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3דThe Village of Grafton and the Mayor also alleged that an objecting township has no ability to seek to enjoin a petition for annexation properly filed pursuant to R.C. 709.16(B). {¶6} In reply, inter alia, Eaton argued that the consent decree was not a contract; thus, the…”
State ex rel. Loofbourrow v. Bd. of Cnty. Commrs., 167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 156 (Ohio 1957). · cites it 8דSection 709.16, Bevised Code, provides that the proceedings before the county commissioners shall be in all respects, so far as applicable, such as are required by Sections 709.”
State ex rel. Smith v. Frost, 1995 Ohio 265 (Ohio 1995). “Under R.C. 709.16(A) and 709.031, the commission set the village’s annexation petition for hearing on January 17, 1995.”
State Ex Rel. Loofbourrow v. Bd. of Commrs., 150 N.E.2d 498 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 2ד, Revised Code, provides (Section 709.16, Revised Code) that when the petition is presented, proceedings shall be had in all respects, so far as applicable, as are required by Sections 709.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.16(A) — 3 cases
Bd. of Trs. v. City of Centerville, 602 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 1992). “R.C. 709.16 provides with respect to annexation petitions by a municipal corporation that: “(A) When a petition for the annexation of contiguous territory by a municipal corporation is presented to the board of county commissioners, *229 proceedings shall be had in all respects,…”
State ex rel. City of Toledo v. Bd. of Commissioners, 513 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio 1987). “The board of commissioners, Maumee, and Monclova Township, however, argue that the board of commissioners had a clear legal duty to refuse to accept for filing Toledo’s annexation petition because of the pending Maumee-Monclova Township merger petitions and the provisions of R.”
State ex rel. Smith v. Frost, 1995 Ohio 265 (Ohio 1995). “Under R.C. 709.16(A) and 709.031, the commission set the village’s annexation petition for hearing on January 17, 1995.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.16(B) — 5 cases
State ex rel. City of Painesville v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 757 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio 2001). “16, which governs petitions for annexation of contiguous property owned by a municipal corporation, provides: “(A) When a petition for the annexation of contiguous territory by a municipal corporation is presented to the board of county commissioners, proceedings shall be had in…”
Bd. of Trs. v. City of Centerville, 602 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 1992). “R.C. 709.16 provides with respect to annexation petitions by a municipal corporation that: “(A) When a petition for the annexation of contiguous territory by a municipal corporation is presented to the board of county commissioners, *229 proceedings shall be had in all respects,…”
State ex rel. Painesville v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2001 Ohio 1609 (Ohio 2001). “16, which governs petitions for annexation of contiguous property owned by a municipal corporation, provides: “(A) When a petition for the annexation of contiguous territory by a municipal corporation is presented to the board of county commissioners, proceedings shall be had in…”
State ex rel. City of Toledo v. Bd. of Commissioners, 513 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio 1987). “The board of commissioners, Maumee, and Monclova Township, however, argue that the board of commissioners had a clear legal duty to refuse to accept for filing Toledo’s annexation petition because of the pending Maumee-Monclova Township merger petitions and the provisions of R.”
Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Grafton, 2021 Ohio 3446 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “The Village of Grafton and the Mayor also alleged that an objecting township has no ability to seek to enjoin a petition for annexation properly filed pursuant to R.C. 709.16(B). {¶6} In reply, inter alia, Eaton argued that the consent decree was not a contract; thus, the…”
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.