TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Arcaro Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Arcaro Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, City of North College Hill

Arcaro Bros. Builders v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 218 N.E.2d 179 (Ohio 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 22, 1966
Docket
No. 39871
Judges
Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Tapt, Zimmerman
Citations
218 N.E.2d 1797 Ohio St. 2d 3236 Ohio Op. 2d 181966 Ohio LEXIS 310

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals refused permission to have any of the witnesses sworn, and allowed unidentified statements, apparently from the audience attending the hearing, to be recorded in the transcript.

Section 2319.01, Revised Code, provides:

‘ ‘ The testimony of witnesses may be taken:

“(A) By affidavit;

“(B) By deposition;

“(C) By oral examination.”

Section 2319.02, Revised Code, provides:

“An affidavit is a written declaration under oath, made without notice to the adverse party. A deposition is a written declaration under oath, made upon notice to the adverse party. Oral testimony is that delivered from the lips of the witness.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 2317.30, Revised Code, provides:

“Before testifying, a witness shall be sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Thus, the record in this appeal contains no evidence.

Hence, the decision of the board was not supported “by *34 the preponderance of substantial, reliable and probative evidence on the whole record.” Section 2506.04, Revised Code.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a hearing in accordance with this opinion.

Judgment reversed.

Tapt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Brown, JJ., concur. Schneider, J., not participating.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 11968: 11971: 11974: 11975: 11978: 11979: 11981: 11985: 11993: 11995: 11998: 12000: 22001: 12003: 12004: 12013: 12014: 12016: 12020: 119672026peak 2000 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list