Still pending preliminary injunction has been granted to rural water association

Ross County Water Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been countered by Chillicothe’s brief in opposition, and followed by Ross’s reply (see filings). According to Matt Dooley, an attorney representing Ross County, “attorney Garry Hunter (who represented the City of Athens in Le-Ax) represents the City of Chillicothe, and his argument here is essentially to extend Le-Ax to apply to indebted non-profit water associations that do not have a court-defined service territory by looking only at existing customers to determine service area. The countless flaws with this theory are addressed in RCWC’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Chillicothe’s position is afoul of the Sixth Circuit’s express limitation of Le-Ax. We also take care to point out that Le-Ax’s boundaries are clearly defined by state law; we do not consider here a case where the state has not defined the boundaries of its water districts or associations.”

1926(b) cases in Ohio To Test the Seminole Le-Ax Ruling – two cases moving through the courts in Ohio have the potential to challenge the (2-1 decided) Le-Ax Circuit Ruling that made a fundamental change in the historical and consistent legal interpretation in 1926(b) jurisprudence. Both cases are being lawyered by Dennis O’Toole’s firm. The newest one being Southwest Licking Community Water and Sewer District v. Reynoldsburg.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *