On April 29, 2024, the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) will be sponsoring its sixth annual program on the Importance of the Ohio Constitution. This year’s program, which begins at 12:30 pm and is again a live interactive webinar, looks at home rule and the nuts and bolts of Ohio Supreme Court practice in cases […]
OSBA Program on The Importance of the Ohio Constitution Read Post »
Beck Energy filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court, seeking to vacate a stop work order issued by Munroe Falls to halt work on the Sunoco well. Beck Energy seeks a declaration that: “The Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII,Section 3, does not allow Munroe Falls to enact a zoning
Beck Energy Challenges Munroe Falls Zoning Ordinances Which Prohibit Drilling Read Post »
The Second District Court of appeals held that SB 342 did not violate the Ohio Constitution’s home rule provisions. SB 342 requires police officers to be present when traffic cameras are operating, and imposes other restrictions on the use of traffic cameras. The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court ruled that these provisions violated the City
Appeals Court Rules State Restrictions on Traffic Cameras are Constitutional Read Post »
Ohio’s Home-Rule Amendment: Why Ohio’s General Assembly Creating Regional Governments would Combat the Regional Race to the Bottom under Current Home-Rule Principles Jonathon Angarola A Citizen’s Guide to Redisticting Reform Through Referendum Grayson Keith Sieg
Two New Cleveland State Law Review Notes on the Ohio Constitution Read Post »
Ohio’s budget act, HB 64, requires that municipalities operating traffic cameras in violation of state restrictions lose local government funding from the state in the amount equal to the fines collected from the cameras. The Ohio legislature recently enacted restrictions on traffic cameras, such as requiring police officers to be present, and other restrictions. See SB 342. Several county
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 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas struck down Broadview Heights’ drilling prohibitions as preempted by ORC Chapter 1509. See Bass Energy, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights, Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Case no. CV-14-828074, Opinion and Judgment Entry (Mar. 10, 2015). Following the recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck
Broadview Heights Drilling Ban Preempted by Ohio Statutes Read Post »