Mittendorf v. City of Ironton

1 Citing case

  1. Dillon v. McNeel

    68 Ohio App. 3d 219 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)

    See, also, 49 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d (1961) 266, 267, Special Assessments, Section 22 ("* * * [A]lthough a municipal corporation may not be limited to the assessment of bounding and abutting property but may also assess specially benefited property, if, by the improvement legislation, provision is made only for special assessments against the property that `bounded and abutted' the improvement, this represents a legislative determination by the municipal corporation that the special benefits are expressly limited to the bounding and abutting property, and other property cannot be assessed. * * *"). Defendants cite Mittendorf v. Ironton (1953), 95 Ohio App. 417, 53 O.O. 463, 120 N.E.2d 473, in support of their position. We find the reasoning applied in Mittendorf to be questionable in light of the controlling statute in effect at the time of that decision.