2 U. Cin. L. Rev. 164 (1928)
It is generally assumed, on the authority of Letts v. Kessler, that spite fences in Ohio are within the law. In two cases language has been used indicating an adherence to the obsolescent view that spite fences may be erected with impunity, but in neither case was the question before the court for decision, so that what was said must be classed as dicta. This, then is the situation: there is not a single decision in the last twenty-one years supporting the rule of Letts v. Kessler. A careful reading of the opinion in Letts v. Kessler will show that the court rested its decision on three propositions. 1. A malicious motive cannot render actionable an act otherwise not actionable. 2. By the weight of authority a spite fence is not actionable. 3. The case of Burke v. Smith, having been decided by a split court, is not an authority. We shall consider these propositions in order. We shall consider these propositions in order.
Joseph O'Meara & Herman W. Santen,
Legal Status of the Spite Fence in Ohio,
2 U. Cin. L. Rev. 164 (1928).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/982