State ex rel. Spiccia v. Abate
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Elbert v. Bexley Planning Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
- State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. City of Berea (Ohio 1966)
- Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls (Idaho 1968)
- Jones v. Village of Chagrin Falls (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
- City of Westerville v. Kuehnert (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
- Sammons v. Village of Batavia (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
- Young v. Board of Zoning Appeals, Dayton, Unpublished Decision (2-4-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
- Kraincic v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
- Cash v. Brookshire United Methodist Church (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
- Pinnacle Woods Survival Game, Inc. v. Hambden Township Zoning Inspector (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)
- Freedom Township Board of Zoning Appeals v. Portage County Board of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
- Van Camp v. Riley (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
- Cicerella, Inc. v. Jerusalem Township Board of Zoning (Ohio Ct. App. 1978)
- Vitolo v. Chave (New York Supreme Court 1970)
- Boxell v. Planning Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1967)
- Lifton v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Health (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
- Calvert v. K F C Operating Co. (Tex. App. 1970)
- In re Ederer v. Board of Zoning Appeals (Medina County Court of Common Pleas 1969)
- Fogg v. City of South Miami (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
- Babb v. Lewis (Or. 1966)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
What constitutes a ‘ ‘ restaurant ” or a “ drive-in restaurant” is not otherwise defined in the zoning ordinance, hence whether the proposed use constitutes one or the other
‘‘ Statutes or ordinances * * # which impose restrictions upon the use * * * of private property, will be strictly construed and their scope cannot be extended to include limitations not therein clearly prescribed.” State, ex rel. Moore Oil Co., v. Dauben, Bldg. Inspr., 99 Ohio St. 406. See, also, State, ex rel. Ice & Fuel Co., v. Kreuzweiser, Inspr. of Bldgs., 120 Ohio St. 352.
The proposed use of this property is for a Dairy Queen type restaurant in which, in addition to the usual products, sandwiches and french fries are to be prepared and sold, where all services to the purchasers are to take place inside the building, and where it is contemplated that much of the food will be eaten at tables provided for that purpose. This operation was properly held to be permitted by the ordinance, in spite of the fact that it is also contemplated that much of the food may be carried to the parked cars and there eaten or carried out and eaten entirely off the premises. This is particularly true when we consider the rule of construction applicable to the zoning ordinances.
The appellants’ argument that the relief was improperly granted because the relator had an adequate remedy at law ignores the often stated proposition that the Court of Appeals has discretion to issue the writ of mandamus, although there exists a plain and adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Grant, Exr., v. Kiefaber et al., Montgomery County Planning Commission, 171 Ohio St. 326. This court will not interfere with exercise of such discretion by that court. State, ex rel. Wesselman, v. Board of Elections of Hamilton County, 170 Ohio St. 30; State, ex rel. Killeen Realty Co., v. City of East Cleveland, 169 Ohio St. 375.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.