Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 723.04 (2026)

Change of name, vacating, or narrowing streets on petition

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Effective:

January 30, 2014

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 72 - 130th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

The legislative authority of a municipal corporation, on petition by a person owning a lot in the municipal corporation praying that a street or alley in the immediate vicinity of such lot be vacated or narrowed, or the name thereof changed, upon hearing, and upon being satisfied that there is good cause for such change of name, vacation, or narrowing, that it will not be detrimental to the general interest, and that it should be made, may, by ordinance, declare such street or alley vacated, narrowed, or the name thereof changed. The legislative authority may include in one ordinance the change of name, vacation, or narrowing of more than one street, avenue, or alley. The original ordinance or a certified copy thereof shall be recorded in the official records of the county recorder.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1986–2020 · leading case: City of Cleveland v. City of Shaker Heights, 507 N.E.2d 323 (Ohio 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Cleveland v. City of Shaker Heights, 507 N.E.2d 323 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 2× “2d 972 , is of little or no value to the determination of the instant case, because that decision concerned a street vacation implemented pursuant to standards set forth in R.C. 723.04 and 723.05. Any similarities existing between the cause herein and Eastland Woods, supra, are…”

Armate Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Reynoldsburg, 702 N.E.2d 130 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1997). · cites it 8× “78-96 pursuant to R.C. 723.04, which states in pertinent part: “The legislative authority of a municipal corporation, on petition by a person owning a lot in the municipal corporation praying that a street or alley in the immediate vicinity of such lot be vacated * * * upon…”

Sedlak v. City of Solon, 661 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1995). “The Sedlaks sought a declaration that the city’s conveyance of Erico Drive to Erico Products was void for the reasons that it was in violation of the terms, conditions and covenants of the Director’s deed from the state to Solon and because the city failed to comply with the…”

Bayer v. City of North Coll. Hill, 510 N.E.2d 400 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1986). “09 by making a crucial finding, and thus, as a matter of law, it did not have authority to grant the petition for vacation of the street. Individuals owning land in the vicinity of a street or alley may seek vacation of the street or alley either by petition to the legislative…”

Sherck v. Bremke, 2012-Ohio-3527. · cites it 8× “{¶12} Most of the cases involving vacation of a street under Section 723.04 involve streets that were not only approved, but also accepted by a municipality.”

Dulebohn v. Waynesfield, 2020-Ohio-4340. · cites it 2× “3 They initially filed a petition to vacate the platted, but unimproved alleyway with the village council pursuant to R.C. 723.04, but later dismissed this petition while the current litigation was ongoing.”

Holtkamp v. Knox & Richland Cty. Jt. Bd. of Commrs., 2011-Ohio-2986. · cites it 2× “{¶14} A review of R.C. 723.04 reveals the process (including a public hearing) for vacation of city streets by “the legislative authority of a municipal corporation” upon petition.”

Kuyoth v. Kelleys Island, 2016-Ohio-1395, 62 N.E.3d 846. “owning a lot in a municipal corporation, for the establishment or vacation of a street or alley in the immediate vicinity of such lot, upon hearing, and upon being satisfied that it will conduce to the general interests of such municipal corporation, declare such street or alley…”

Wilson v. S. Euclid, 2016-Ohio-3258. “The same resident who objected to the “no trespassing” signs objected to the legislation, and the ordinance never made it out of committee. Wilson then filed this action.”

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.