1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ohio
  4. 70 Ohio
  5. 70 Ohio St.3d 506 (1994)
 

DANDINO v. HOOVER

No. 92-2273.

70 Ohio St.3d 506 (1994)

DANDINO ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. HOOVER, CITY MGR., ET AL., APPELLEES.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided October 12, 1994.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lydy & Moan and Jeffrey Lydy, for appellants.

Keith A. Wilkowski, Director of Law, and Edward M. Yosses, General Counsel, for appellees.

PFEIFER, J.

Because we determine that the trial court's injunction was in part well supported by law, we partially reverse the court of appeals.

I

The Referendum was not a Repeal of a Repealing Ordinance.

Appellees argue that Toledo Municipal Code 101.04(a) applies to the present case. The code section provides that "[t]he repeal of a repealing ordinance does not revive the ordinance originally...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases