Sections 713.06 to 713.12, inclusive, of the Revised Code do not repeal, reduce, or modify any power granted by law or charter to any municipal corporation or the legislative authority thereof, or impair or restrict the power of any municipal corporation under Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution. And where a new municipal corporation is created out of the territory of a county or township or any part thereof in which territory zoning regulations have been previously adopted as provided by sections 303.02 to 303.25, inclusive, or sections 519.02 to 519.25, inclusive, of the Revised Code, such regulations may be adopted and continued in full force and effect by the newly created municipal corporation without following the procedure prescribed by sections 713.07 to 713.11, inclusive, of the Revised Code and the council of such newly incorporated municipal corporation may continue such zoning provisions in effect by the enactment of an emergency ordinance as provided by law.
Sections 713.06 to 713.12, inclusive, of the Revised Code do not authorize a municipal corporation to reserve the use of any private property for future public use for the purpose of extending or widening streets.
State ex rel. Phillips Supply Co. v. Cincinnati, 2012-Ohio-6096. · cites it 5ד12 and Cincinnati Municipal Code 111-5 because R.C. 713.14 makes R.C. 713.12 inapplicable to a charter municipality like Cincinnati.”
Henle v. City of Euclid, 125 N.E.2d 355 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1954). · cites it 2דSection 713.14, Revised Code. We are, therefore, confronted with just one question — under all the circumstances and facts of this case, is the zoning ordinance of the city of Euclid, as it applies to plaintiff’s property, a constitutional exercise of the police power of the…”
Dsuban v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 748 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2000). “2d at 687-688 ; R.C. 713.14. 4 . The same principle is true for Ohio counties.”
Hausmann & Johnson, Inc. v. Berea Bd. of Bldg. Code Appeals, 320 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1974). · cites it 2דOhio Revised Code, §713.14: “Sections 713.06 to 713.12, inclusive, of the Revised Code do not repeal, reduce, or modify any power granted by law or charter to any municipal corporation or the legislative authority thereof, or impair or restrict the power of any municipal…”
Kinzel v. Ebner, 2023-Ohio-164, 205 N.E.3d 1225. “zoning, the City’s charter does not conflict with “general laws” because R.C. 713.14 expressly precludes the application of R.”
Taylor v. State, Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 540 N.E.2d 310 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1988). “However, R.C. 713.14 clarifies the legislative intent as to the zoning power of municipalities, as opposed to municipal governmental structure.”
State ex rel. Dille Labs. Corp. v. Woditsch, 156 N.E.2d 164 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 2דSection 713.14, Revised Code.’ “With this statement of the law we concur, and it is equally applicable to the facts and issues in this case.”
State ex rel. Sun Oil Co. v. City of Euclid, 164 Ohio St. 265 (1955). · cites it 2דSection 713.14, Revised Code.” With this statement of the law we concur, and it is equally applicable to the facts and issues in this case.”
Morris v. Roseman, 162 Ohio St. 447 (1954). “But the plaintiffs contend that the General Assembly by the language employed in Sections 4366-12 and 4366-12a, General Code (Sections 713.14 and 713.13, Revised Code), recognized the import and significance of Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution, and specifically…”
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.