8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Akron v. Scaleragreen2 sentences2013“Nor can this power of home rule, expressly conferred upon municipalities, be withdrawn by the General Assembly.” Id. citing Akron v. Scalera, 135 Ohio St. 65, 66 (1939). 2013“The authority conferred by Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution upon municipalities to adopt and enforce police regulations is limited only by general laws in conflict therewith upon the same subject matter.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. | 2 | 4 |
State ex rel. Aloi v. Court of Common Pleasgreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., Teamsters Local Union No. 377 v. Youngstown (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 158 , 18 O.O. 3d 379, 413 N.E. 2d 837 (power to determine compensation of employees); State, ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
United Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 377 v. City of Youngstowngreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., Teamsters Local Union No. 377 v. Youngstown (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 158 , 18 O.O. 3d 379, 413 N.E. 2d 837 (power to determine compensation of employees); State, ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Steele v. Stategreen1 sentence1972See paragraph one of the syllabus in State v. O’Mara (1922), 105 Ohio St. 94 , approved in Steele v. State, 121 Ohio St. 332 ; Local Government Law — Municipal Power to Define Crimes, 13 Ohio St. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fondessy Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Oregon
green
2 sentences2013“Nor can this power of home rule, expressly conferred upon municipalities, be withdrawn by the General Assembly.” Id. citing Akron v. Scalera, 135 Ohio St. 65, 66 (1939). 2004Fondessy Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Oregon (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 213 , 214 , citing Akron v. Scaler (1939), 135 Ohio St. 65 , 66 . | 3 | 2004–2013 |
City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations Board
green
2 sentences2009The majority considered the code sections upheld in Pension Fund and remarked that these sections were “considerably more intrusive on a municipality’s power of home rule than [the statute at issue in Rocky River IV].” Id. 2009The majority considered the code sections upheld in Pension Fund and remarked that these sections were “considerably more intrusive on a municipality’s power of home rule than [the statute at issue in Rocky River IV].” Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Mentor
green
2 sentences2006Assn., Inc. v. Mentor , 108 Ohio App.3d 373 , this court also applied the two step analysis of Bardo and followed in Bednar , when we concluded that the city of Mentor, by its Charter, reserved the power of home rule, but failed to exercise it properly. 2006Id. at 379-380 . {¶ 23} Upon the review of these cases, it is clear that the determination of whether a municipality has superseded a state statute by its home rule power involves a two-part test: (1) whether the municipality has through its charter set forth a reservation of intent to exercise home rule power and (2) whether the municipality has properly exercised that power. {¶ 24} An examination of the City's charter reveals intent to exercise home rule powers. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.