Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case:
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2022 Ohio 1642 (Ohio 2022).
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2022 Ohio 1642 (Ohio 2022).
· cites it 10× “502—No conflict exists between a municipality’s ordinance allowing the use of traffic cameras and state law allowing a reduction of a municipality’s share of the state’s local-government funds—R.C. 4511.099—No conflict exists between a municipality’s ordinance allowing the use…”
Dayton v. State, 2021 Ohio 967 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 10× “502(C), (D), (F), R.C. 4511.099(A), R.C. 1901.20(A)(1), R.C.”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021 Ohio 61 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 7× “The Fourth Contested Provision — Advance Court Deposit The fourth contested provision, requiring local authorities to provide advance and nonrecoverable court deposits to cover “all applicable court costs and fees” for civil actions related to the photo enforcement programs, is…”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 20× “{¶ 69} Under division (A) of R.C. 4511.099, four requirements are detailed that apply when a person or entity elects to contest the ticket and timely completes the requirements prescribed in R.”
Black v. Girard, 2023 Ohio 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 10× “2021-T-0061 opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the posted speed limit of 55 mph was valid through the administrative hearing process afforded by former R.C. 4511.099. To begin with, the precise issue raised by the plaintiffs, i.”
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017).
“R.C. 4511.099(G) authorizes an appeal of the administrative decision to either a municipal or county court with jurisdiction over the location where the violation occurred.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2016 Ohio 4906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “098 (indicating the procedure that should be followed by one who receives a ticket alleging a violation of the traffic law under the automated traffic control program); R.C. 4511.099 (providing for an administrative hearing for those wishing to appeal a citation under the…”
Toledo v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8955 (Ohio 2017).
· cites it 2× “098, which provides rights for those ticketed, including procedures to protect owners who were not driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction; R.C. 4511.099, which grants an administrative hearing to those wishing to contest a photo-enforcement ticket; and R.”
Dayton v. State, 2022 Ohio 4412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 12× “Newburgh also held that the deposit requirement in R.C. 4511.099 does not conflict with Home Rule authority because, although it may make litigating violations based on traffic cameras more expensive for municipalities, it does not prohibit municipalities from using cameras to…”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “097, and R.C. 4511.099 were unconstitutional “incursions” into its power of local self-government.”
Toledo v. State, 2022 Ohio 1192 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “The trial court dismissed the city’s claims because it found that these statutes no longer apply to the city in light of its temporary suspension of its photo enforcement traffic program.”
Downey v. City of Toledo (N.D. Ohio 2020).
· cites it 9× “Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(G). Downey appealed the citation and attended a hearing but did not appeal the outcome of his administrative hearing to the Toledo Municipal Court or the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(A) — 7 cases
Dayton v. State, 2021 Ohio 967 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
“502(C), (D), (F), R.C. 4511.099(A), R.C. 1901.20(A)(1), R.C.”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021 Ohio 61 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
“The Fourth Contested Provision — Advance Court Deposit The fourth contested provision, requiring local authorities to provide advance and nonrecoverable court deposits to cover “all applicable court costs and fees” for civil actions related to the photo enforcement programs, is…”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2022 Ohio 1642 (Ohio 2022).
“502—No conflict exists between a municipality’s ordinance allowing the use of traffic cameras and state law allowing a reduction of a municipality’s share of the state’s local-government funds—R.C. 4511.099—No conflict exists between a municipality’s ordinance allowing the use…”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
“{¶ 69} Under division (A) of R.C. 4511.099, four requirements are detailed that apply when a person or entity elects to contest the ticket and timely completes the requirements prescribed in R.”
Dayton v. State, 2022 Ohio 4412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
“Newburgh also held that the deposit requirement in R.C. 4511.099 does not conflict with Home Rule authority because, although it may make litigating violations based on traffic cameras more expensive for municipalities, it does not prohibit municipalities from using cameras to…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(A)(2) — 1 case
Black v. Girard, 2023 Ohio 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
“2021-T-0061 opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the posted speed limit of 55 mph was valid through the administrative hearing process afforded by former R.C. 4511.099. To begin with, the precise issue raised by the plaintiffs, i.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(A)(3) — 1 case
Black v. Girard, 2023 Ohio 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
“2021-T-0061 opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the posted speed limit of 55 mph was valid through the administrative hearing process afforded by former R.C. 4511.099. To begin with, the precise issue raised by the plaintiffs, i.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(B)(4) — 1 case
Black v. Girard, 2023 Ohio 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
“2021-T-0061 opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the posted speed limit of 55 mph was valid through the administrative hearing process afforded by former R.C. 4511.099. To begin with, the precise issue raised by the plaintiffs, i.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(C)(1)(b) — 1 case
Black v. Girard, 2023 Ohio 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
“2021-T-0061 opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the posted speed limit of 55 mph was valid through the administrative hearing process afforded by former R.C. 4511.099. To begin with, the precise issue raised by the plaintiffs, i.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(G) — 3 cases
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017).
“R.C. 4511.099(G) authorizes an appeal of the administrative decision to either a municipal or county court with jurisdiction over the location where the violation occurred.”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
“{¶ 69} Under division (A) of R.C. 4511.099, four requirements are detailed that apply when a person or entity elects to contest the ticket and timely completes the requirements prescribed in R.”
Downey v. City of Toledo (N.D. Ohio 2020).
“Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(G). Downey appealed the citation and attended a hearing but did not appeal the outcome of his administrative hearing to the Toledo Municipal Court or the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(H) — 3 cases
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
“{¶ 69} Under division (A) of R.C. 4511.099, four requirements are detailed that apply when a person or entity elects to contest the ticket and timely completes the requirements prescribed in R.”
Black v. Girard, 2023 Ohio 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
“2021-T-0061 opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the posted speed limit of 55 mph was valid through the administrative hearing process afforded by former R.C. 4511.099. To begin with, the precise issue raised by the plaintiffs, i.”
Downey v. City of Toledo (N.D. Ohio 2020).
“Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.099(G). Downey appealed the citation and attended a hearing but did not appeal the outcome of his administrative hearing to the Toledo Municipal Court or the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.