OHIO EX REL. MOOCK

v.

CINCINNATI ET AL; AND MOOCK V. CINCINNATI

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Ohio Valley Co., Inc., 510 F.2d 1184 (7th Cir. 1975)
  …38 F.Supp. 754 (S.D.N.Y. 1956); United States v. The Republic No. 2, 64 F.Supp. 373 (S.D.Tex.1946); The Gansfjord, 25 F. 2d 736 (E.D.La. 1928), aff’d sub nom. Aktieselskabet Dampskib Gansfjord v. United States, 32 F. 2d 236 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 280 U.S. 578, 50 S.Ct. 32, 74 L.Ed. 629 (1929). Thus, the only question that remains is whether the Limited Liability Act of 1851, 46 U.S.C. § 183(a), may be asserted as a defense by the defendant-vessel. Section 183(a) provides that the liability of the owner o…
• United States v. The M/V Martin & Barge Mos-101, 313 F.2d 851 (7th Cir. 1963)
  …p. 417, 419 (E.D.La. 1961). Several district courts are in accord with the above rulings. For instance, The Gansfjord, 25 F. 2d 736 (E.D.La. 1928), aff’d Aktieselskabet Dampskib Gansfjord v. United States, 5 Cir. (1929), 32 F. 2d 236, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 578, 50 S.Ct. 32, 74 L.Ed. 629, emphasizes the inapplicability of the theory of negligence in an action such as that in the case at bar. At 737, the court said: “The claimant, although it admits that criminal prosecution of the master and pilot is not…
• Hybud Equip. Corp. v. City OF Akron, 654 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1981)
  …State ex rel Toledo v. Lynch, 88 Ohio St. 71, 102 N.E. 670 (1913), including the power to establish a municipal monopoly for the collection and incineration of garbage. State ex rel. Moock v. Cincinnati, 120 Ohio St. 500, 166 N.E. 583, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 578, 50 S.Ct. 31, 74 L.Ed. 628 (1929). In addition, Ohio statutes delegate to municipalities the authority to regulate the disposal of garbage. Ohio Rev.Code § 715.-43 grants municipalities the authority to “provide for the collection and disposition o…

  ← 1 / 2 →