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, the taxpayer may institute suit in his own name, on behalf of the municipal corporation. Any taxpayer of any municipal corporation in which there is no village solicitor or city director of law may bring such suit on behalf of the municipal corporation. No such suit or proceeding shall be entertained by any court until the taxpayer gives security for the cost of the proceeding.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Columbus (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6724 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 18דIn the first, appellants and Witt sought injunctive relief against enforcement of the ordinances through a statutory-taxpayer action, as permitted by R.C. 733.59. In support, appellants and 2 January Term, 2020 Witt alleged that the implementation of the ordinances “resulted in,…”
State ex rel. Harris v. Rubino, 126 N.E.3d 1068 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 11ד58, "when an officer * * * of a municipal corporation *1074 fails to perform any duty expressly enjoined by law or ordinance, the * * * city director of law shall apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of the duty.”
Ohioans for Concealed Carry v. Columbus, 2019 Ohio 3105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 28דR.C. 733.59. R.C. 733.61 provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]f the court hearing a case under section 733.”
City of Cincinnati Ex Rel. Ritter v. Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C., 782 N.E.2d 1225 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6ד{¶ 4} This case began in March 1996, when Ritter filed a taxpayer action under R.C. 733.59 against Cincinnati, challenging Cincinnati’s failure to enforce its lease agreement with the Reds concerning Cinergy Field and seeking collection of rents due.”
City of Cleveland Ex Rel. O'Malley v. White, 774 N.E.2d 337 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8ד58 of the Revised Code, the taxpayer may institute suit in his own name, on behalf of the municipal corporation.”
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 3ד2d 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.”
State ex rel. Nimon v. Vill. of Springdale, 215 N.E.2d 592 (Ohio 1966). · cites it 10דfrom the pleadings and the agreed statement of facts but conceded in the briefs of respondents) brought this action for a writ of mandamus to require the council to perform its duty under the charter and certify the petition to the Board of Elections of Hamilton County for…”
State ex rel. Harris v. Rubino (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 3609 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 4דThe committee asserts these claims as a taxpayer action under R.C. 733.59 and seeks costs and reasonable attorney fees under R.”
Porter v. City of Oberlin, 205 N.E.2d 363 (Ohio 1965). · cites it 8ד*146 Section 733.59, 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.”
McQueen v. Dohoney, 2013 Ohio 2424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 11דThe plaintiffs-relators dismissed their federal claim and amended the complaint to assert a claim, and statutory taxpayer standing, under R.C. 733.59. The district court remanded the action back to the Hamilton County common pleas court.”
Hyde Park Circle, L.L.C. v. Cincinnati, 2016 Ohio 3130 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4ד{¶21} In the City’s second assignment of error, the City argues that the trial court erred when it found in favor of HPC on its statutory-taxpayer action.”
City of Hubbard ex rel. Creed v. Sauline, 659 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 3דAttorney Fees The trial court failed to award attorney fees to Creed’s administrator for the reason that “the court finds the Plaintiff is not entitled thereto” and because it found that the litigation resulted in “no benefit * * * to the residents and taxpayers of Hubbard,…”
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.