The village solicitor or city director of law shall apply, in the name of the municipal corporation, to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order of injunction to restrain the misapplication of funds of the municipal corporation, the abuse of its corporate powers, or the execution or performance of any contract made in behalf of the municipal corporation in contravention of the laws or ordinance governing it, or which was procured by fraud or corruption.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Porter v. City of Oberlin, 205 N.E.2d 363 (Ohio 1965).
Porter v. City of Oberlin, 205 N.E.2d 363 (Ohio 1965). · cites it 15ד59, Revised Code, provides in part: “If the solicitor fails, upon the written request of any taxpayer of such municipal corporation, to make any application provided for in Sections 733.56 * * * such taxpayer may institute suit in his own name, on behalf of the municipal…”
Ohioans for Concealed Carry v. Columbus, 2019 Ohio 3105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7דStatutory Taypayer Standing {¶ 14} R.C. 733.56 authorizes the village solicitor or city director of law to seek an "injunction to restrain the [1] misapplication of funds of the municipal corporation, [2] the abuse of its corporate powers, [3] or the execution or performance of…”
Mollette v. Portsmouth City Council, 902 N.E.2d 515 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6ד60 imposes a limitations period for taxpayer actions brought under R.C. 733.56 et seq. See Cuyahoga Falls v.”
Westbrook v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 524 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 8דR.C. 733.56 authorizes the city director of law to seek injunctive relief in certain instances.”
Deluca v. City of Aurora, 760 N.E.2d 880 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4דOn August 25, 1997, appellee filed a motion to amend his complaint to clarify certain issues and to concisely allege a “taxpayers action” pursuant to R.C. 733.56 and 733.59. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to amend the complaint and found that appellee’s complaint…”
Home Builders Ass'n of Dayton & the Miami Valley v. City of Lebanon, 854 N.E.2d 1097 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4דThe homebuilders asserted nine claims in that complaint, including the following three claims at issue in this case: (1) the city’s ordinance mandating connection to the telecommunications system was unconstitutional because it amounted to a “taking” without just compensation,…”
Jenkins v. Eberhart, 594 N.E.2d 29 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4דThat decision reveals that the only relief requested from the court was an adjudication that a municipal ordinance was unconstitutional which, as the court of appeals noted, was not one of those actions set forth in R.C. 733.56 through 733.58. In this case, however, the true…”
City of Cincinnati Ex Rel. Ritter v. Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C., 782 N.E.2d 1225 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2ד3 A taxpayer action can be brought on behalf of a municipal corporation by a taxpayer after the city’s law director refuses, upon written request of the taxpayer, to make any application under R.C. 733.56 through 733.58. 4 Under R.C. 733.”
Cincinnati v. State, 2022 Ohio 1019 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5דHe requested the solicitor bring an action under R.C. 733.56 to enjoin herself as solicitor from continuing with the R.”
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999). “2d 1048 , 1054-1055, we held that a taxpayer has standing as such to enforce the public’s right to proper execution of city charter removal provisions, regardless of any private or personal benefit. While the mandamus action in Cater was brought pursuant to R.”
Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Columbus (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6724 (Ohio 2020). “59, which sets forth the prerequisites for a taxpayer’s action: If the village solicitor or city director of law fails, upon the written request of any taxpayer of the municipal corporation, to make any application provided for in sections 733.56 to 733.58 of the Revised Code,…”
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.