The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments today to determine whether inclusion of a prison privatization measure in state budget legislation violates the Ohio Constitution’s one subject rule. The case is State ex rel. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v. State , Ohio Supreme Court case no. 2014-0319. (Docket, Oral Argument Preview). Also at issue […]
In Hillenmeyer v. Cleveland Bd. of Rev., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1623, the Ohio Supreme Court found that: Cleveland’s use of the games-played method violates due process as applied to NFL players such as Hillenmeyer. Under the duty-days method, which provides due process and satisfies Cleveland’s municipal-income-tax ordinance, Hillenmeyer is entitled to a partial refund of
Cleveland’s Jock Tax Violates Due Process, but not Equal Protection Read Post »
In State v. Bode, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1519, the Ohio Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that a defendant’s juvenile adjudication of delinquency for DUI could not enhance the penalty for a later adult sentence for DUI, when there was no defense counsel at the juvenile adjudication, and there was no waiver of the
The Lucas County Common Pleas Court held yesterday that State legislation requiring police officers to be present, and imposing other restrictions on the operation of traffic cameras, SB 342, violates the home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution. See Toledo v. State, Lucas C.P. Case No. CI-201501828. The City of Toledo was granted an injunction.
State Restrictions on Traffic Cameras Violate Home Rule, Says Lucas County Court Read Post »
Ohioans for Concealed Carry sued the City of Cleveland in order to strike down the City’s new gun ordinance because it is preempted by state law. See Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County Docket Number CV-15-844547. ORC 9.68 states: …the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout
Lawsuit Asserts Cleveland’s New Gun Ordinance is Preempted by State Law Read Post »
According to the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, the Ohio law requiring a police officer to be present during operation of traffic cameras, SB 342 , violates the Home Rule provision of the Ohio Constitution. The Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the City of Dayton to stop the state law from going
State legislation requiring police officers to be present, and imposing other restrictions on the operation of traffic cameras, SB 342 , will not go into effect in Toledo today. See Toledo Blade City gets stay of red-light camera law. A Lucas County judge granted Toledo a preliminary injunction halting the parts of state legislation from
Toledo Granted Preliminary Injunction to Halt State Traffic Camera Restrictions Read Post »
The City of Toledo sued the State of Ohio, seeking a temporary and permanent injunction to prevent Ohio’s new traffic camera legislation, SB 342 ,from going into effect. (See Toledo Blade, Toledo sues over traffic camera ban). SB 342 requires that a police officer be present when a traffic camera is in operation, making traffic
Toledo Sues State Over Traffic Camera Restrictions Read Post »
The Ohio Supreme Court held that a Lodi zoning ordinance deprives mobile-home park owners of their due process rights under the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. The ordinance involved mobile parks in areas where current zoning prohibits mobile homes, but the mobile parks existed before the zoning prohibiting them, so they are grandfathered in. This is
Mobile Home Zoning Ordinance Violates Due Process Read Post »
The City of Akron filed a lawsuit in order to stop recent traffic camera legislation from going into effect. SB 342 requires that a police officer be present when a traffic camera is in operation, making traffic cameras economically infeasible for most cities. The new law also creates procedural requirements and states that motorists can
Akron Files Lawsuit Challenging State Law Restrictions on Traffic Cameras Read Post »