home-rule analysis in Ohio

2019Jefferson v. Robinson, 1 Ohio St.2d 113 , 115, 205 N.E.2d 382 (1965). {¶ 13} A municipal ordinance, nevertheless, must yield to a statewide statute if the following elements are met: "(1) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute, (2) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, and (3) the statute is a general law." See Canton , 95 Ohio St.3d 149 , 2002-Ohio-2005 , 766 N.E.2d 963 , at ¶ 9. {¶ 14} Subsequent to Canton , the Supreme Court of Ohio has reordered this test and has stated that the proper sequence to approach a home-rule analysis is as

2009Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 , 2002-Ohio-2005 , 766 N.E.2d 963 , at ¶ 9; cf. Ohioans for Concealed Carry, 120 Ohio St.3d 96 , 2008-Ohio-4605 , 896 N.E.2d 967, at ¶ 26 (referring to this determination as the final step of the home-rule analysis).

2019Jefferson v. Robinson, 1 Ohio St.2d 113 , 115, 205 N.E.2d 382 (1965). {¶ 13} A municipal ordinance, nevertheless, must yield to a statewide statute if the following elements are met: "(1) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute, (2) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, and (3) the statute is a general law." See Canton , 95 Ohio St.3d 149 , 2002-Ohio-2005 , 766 N.E.2d 963 , at ¶ 9. {¶ 14} Subsequent to Canton , the Supreme Court of Ohio has reordered this test and has stated that the proper sequence to approach a home-rule analysis is as

2009Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 , 2002-Ohio-2005 , 766 N.E.2d 963 , at ¶ 9; cf. Ohioans for Concealed Carry, 120 Ohio St.3d 96 , 2008-Ohio-4605 , 896 N.E.2d 967, at ¶ 26 (referring to this determination as the final step of the home-rule analysis).

2021In Linndale v. State, 85 Ohio St.3d 52 , 1999 Ohio 434 , 706 N.E.2d 1227 (1999), this court considered a home-rule challenge to former R.C. 4549.17, which prohibited local law-enforcement officers from issuing speeding and excess-weight citations on interstate freeways when (1) less than 880 yards of the freeway were within the locality’s jurisdiction, (2) local officers had to travel outside their jurisdiction to enter onto the freeway, and (3) local officers entered the freeway with the primary purpose of issuing the citations.

2021In Linndale v. State, 85 Ohio St.3d 52 , 706 N.E.2d 1227 (1999), this court considered a home-rule challenge to former R.C. 4549.17, which prohibited local law-enforcement officers from issuing speeding and excess-weight citations on interstate freeways when (1) less than 880 yards of the freeway were within the locality's jurisdiction, (2) local officers had to travel outside their jurisdiction to enter onto the freeway, and (3) local officers entered the freeway with the primary purpose of issuing the citations.

2013Co., supra, at 103, citing Garcia, supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶57} Regarding the rights-of-way ordinances, the parties do not dispute that they are the city’s exercise of its police power, as they seek to protect the public safety and general welfare. {¶58} The next step in the home-rule analysis asks whether the oil and gas drilling statute is a “general law.” This court has already determined, in Smith Family, that “R.C. 1509 et seq., regulates the conservation of natural resources and is unquestionably a general law.” Smith Family at ¶11.

2008Canton, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 , 2002-Ohio-2005 , 766 N.E.2d 963 , ¶ 30, quoting Garcia v. Siffrin Residential Assn. (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 259, 272 , 17 O.O.3d 167 , 407 N.E.2d 1369 . {¶ 59} In fact, this case provides a prime example of the types of arbitrary and unreasonable conduct discussed in Canton.

2006Relations Bd. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 226, 228 , 530 N.E.2d 26 , overruled on other grounds, Rocky River v. State Emp.

2006Relations Bd. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 226, 228 , 530 N.E.2d 26 , overruled on other grounds, Rocky River v. State Emp.

1986In Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128, 139-140 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 , the California high court rejected a home-rule challenge to that state’s Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act, reasoning as follows: “* * * [I]t can hardly be disputed that the maintenance of stable employment relations between police officers and their employers is a matter of statewide concern.

1986In Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128, 139-140 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 , the California high court rejected a home-rule challenge to that state’s Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act, reasoning as follows: “* * * [I]t can hardly be disputed that the maintenance of stable employment relations between police officers and their employers is a matter of statewide concern.

2019Jefferson v. Robinson, 1 Ohio St.2d 113 , 115, 205 N.E.2d 382 (1965). {¶ 13} A municipal ordinance, nevertheless, must yield to a statewide statute if the following elements are met: "(1) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute, (2) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, and (3) the statute is a general law." See Canton , 95 Ohio St.3d 149 , 2002-Ohio-2005 , 766 N.E.2d 963 , at ¶ 9. {¶ 14} Subsequent to Canton , the Supreme Court of Ohio has reordered this test and has stated that the proper sequence to approach a home-rule analysis is as

2019Jefferson v. Robinson, 1 Ohio St.2d 113 , 115, 205 N.E.2d 382 (1965). {¶ 13} A municipal ordinance, nevertheless, must yield to a statewide statute if the following elements are met: "(1) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute, (2) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, and (3) the statute is a general law." See Canton , 95 Ohio St.3d 149 , 2002-Ohio-2005 , 766 N.E.2d 963 , at ¶ 9. {¶ 14} Subsequent to Canton , the Supreme Court of Ohio has reordered this test and has stated that the proper sequence to approach a home-rule analysis is as

2019Toledo , 2016-Ohio-4906 , 56 N.E.3d 997 , at ¶ 14. {¶ 24} We note appellants' third and fourth assignments of error address the third and fourth prongs of the Canton general-law test, respectively. {¶ 25} A general law under the test must: (1) be part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, (2) apply to all parts of the state alike and operate uniformly throughout the state, (3) set forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations, rather than purport only to grant or limit legislative power of a municipal corporation to set forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations, and (4)

2019I therefore dissent and would reverse the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. {¶ 31} The Home Rule Amendment establishes municipalities’ authority “to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.” Article XVIII, Section 3, Ohio Constitution. {¶ 32} In conducting the home-rule analysis, we first consider “whether the ordinance involves an exercise of local self-government or

2019I therefore dissent and would reverse the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. {¶ 31} The Home Rule Amendment establishes municipalities’ authority “to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.” Article XVIII, Section 3, Ohio Constitution. {¶ 32} In conducting the home-rule analysis, we first consider “whether the ordinance involves an exercise of local self-government or

2017Lorain No. 15CA010790, 2016-Ohio-2764, ¶ 21 . {¶12} The question before this Court is whether Oberlin Codified Ordinance 927.07 as amended conflicts with R.C. 9.68. {¶13} “Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, commonly known as the Home Rule Amendment, gives municipalities the ‘authority to exercise all powers of local self- government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.’” Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 , 2010-Ohio-6318, ¶ 7 , quoting Article XVIII, Section 3, Ohio

2017Lorain No. 15CA010790, 2016-Ohio-2764, ¶ 21 . {¶12} The question before this Court is whether Oberlin Codified Ordinance 927.07 as amended conflicts with R.C. 9.68. {¶13} “Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, commonly known as the Home Rule Amendment, gives municipalities the ‘authority to exercise all powers of local self- government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.’” Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 , 2010-Ohio-6318, ¶ 7 , quoting Article XVIII, Section 3, Ohio

2017Lorain No. 15CA010790, 2016-Ohio-2764, ¶ 21 . {¶12} The question before this Court is whether Oberlin Codified Ordinance 927.07 as amended conflicts with R.C. 9.68. {¶13} “Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, commonly known as the Home Rule Amendment, gives municipalities the ‘authority to exercise all powers of local self- government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.’” Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 , 2010-Ohio-6318, ¶ 7 , quoting Article XVIII, Section 3, Ohio

2013Assn. v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 170 , 2006-Ohio-6043 , 858 N.E.2d 776 , ¶ 23 (if an ordinance relates solely to matters of self-government, the home-rule analysis stops because Article XVIII, Section 3 “ ‘authorizes a municipality to exercise all powers of local self-government within its jurisdiction’ ”). {¶ 19} While Worthington points to Fisher v. Neusser, 74 Ohio St.3d 506, 507 , 660 N.E.2d 435 (1996), to assert that municipalities “have the right to exercise all powers of local self-government and may adopt and enforce such local regulations that are not in conflict with the general la

2013Assn. v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 170 , 2006-Ohio-6043 , 858 N.E.2d 776 , ¶ 23 (if an ordinance relates solely to matters of self-government, the home-rule analysis stops because Article XVIII, Section 3 “ ‘authorizes a municipality to exercise all powers of local self-government within its jurisdiction’ ”). {¶ 19} While Worthington points to Fisher v. Neusser, 74 Ohio St.3d 506, 507 , 660 N.E.2d 435 (1996), to assert that municipalities “have the right to exercise all powers of local self-government and may adopt and enforce such local regulations that are not in conflict with the general la

2013Assn. v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 170 , 2006-Ohio-6043 , 858 N.E.2d 776 , ¶ 23 (if an ordinance relates solely to matters of self-government, the home-rule analysis stops because Article XVIII, Section 3 “ ‘authorizes a municipality to exercise all powers of local self-government within its jurisdiction’ ”). {¶ 19} While Worthington points to Fisher v. Neusser, 74 Ohio St.3d 506, 507 , 660 N.E.2d 435 (1996), to assert that municipalities “have the right to exercise all powers of local self-government and may adopt and enforce such local regulations that are not in conflict with the general la

2009Comm. of Kansas (1935), 294 U.S. 613 , 622, 55 S.Ct. 563 , 79 L.Ed. 1090 . {¶ 15} The closest that the Supreme Court of Ohio came to defining “police power” within the home-rule analysis context was in Cincinnati v. Correll, 141 Ohio St. 535 , 26 O.O. 116 , 49 N.E.2d 412 , in which the court held, “A municipal ordinance limiting and fixing the hours during which a barber shop may remain open for business with the public is not a valid exercise of the police power.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

2009Comm. of Kansas (1935), 294 U.S. 613 , 622, 55 S.Ct. 563 , 79 L.Ed. 1090 . {¶ 15} The closest that the Supreme Court of Ohio came to defining “police power” within the home-rule analysis context was in Cincinnati v. Correll, 141 Ohio St. 535 , 26 O.O. 116 , 49 N.E.2d 412 , in which the court held, “A municipal ordinance limiting and fixing the hours during which a barber shop may remain open for business with the public is not a valid exercise of the police power.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

2009Comm. of Kansas (1935), 294 U.S. 613 , 622, 55 S.Ct. 563 , 79 L.Ed. 1090 . {¶ 15} The closest that the Supreme Court of Ohio came to defining “police power” within the home-rule analysis context was in Cincinnati v. Correll, 141 Ohio St. 535 , 26 O.O. 116 , 49 N.E.2d 412 , in which the court held, “A municipal ordinance limiting and fixing the hours during which a barber shop may remain open for business with the public is not a valid exercise of the police power.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

2009Comm. of Kansas (1935), 294 U.S. 613 , 622, 55 S.Ct. 563 , 79 L.Ed. 1090 . {¶ 15} The closest that the Supreme Court of Ohio came to defining “police power” within the home-rule analysis context was in Cincinnati v. Correll, 141 Ohio St. 535 , 26 O.O. 116 , 49 N.E.2d 412 , in which the court held, “A municipal ordinance limiting and fixing the hours during which a barber shop may remain open for business with the public is not a valid exercise of the police power.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

2008As this court recently noted, “[a]n ordinance created under the power of local self-government must relate ‘solely to the government and administration of the internal affairs of the municipality.’ ” Marich, 116 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2008-Ohio-92 , 880 N.E.2d 906 , ¶ 11, quoting Beachwood v. Cuyahoga Cty.

2008Ohioans for Concealed Carry Inc., 2007-Ohio-1733 , 2007 WL 1098347 , ¶ 12.

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979

1988See Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1963), 60 Cal. 2d 276 , 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 , 384 P. 2d 158 ; Baggett v. Gates (1982), 32 Cal. 3d 128 , 185 Cal. Rptr. 232 , 649 P. 2d 874 ; Carofano v. Bridgeport (1985), 196 Conn. 623 , 495 A. 2d 1011 ; Arlington v. Bd. of Concil. & Arbit. (1976), 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E. 2d 914 ; Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit (1974), 391 Mich. 44 , 214 N.W. 2d 803 ; Amsterdam v. Helsby (1975) , 37 N.Y. 2d 19 , 332 N.E. 2d 290 ; Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters (1981), 292 Ore. 266 , 639 P. 2d 90 ; Medford Firefighters Assn. v. Medford (1979