(A) Any municipal corporation may prevent riot, gambling, noise and disturbance, and indecent and disorderly conduct or assemblages, preserve the peace and good order, and protect the property of the municipal corporation and its inhabitants.
(B) Anytime a noise ordinance of a municipal corporation is violated, but the source of the noise is located outside the borders of that municipal corporation in an adjoining municipal corporation, the municipal corporation with the ordinance may enforce the ordinance against that source as long as there is a written agreement between the two municipal corporations permitting such enforcement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1987–2013 · leading case: State ex rel. Rothal v. Smith, 783 N.E.2d 1001 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2002).
State ex rel. Rothal v. Smith, 783 N.E.2d 1001 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2002). “49(A) states that “[a]ny municipal corporation may prevent riot, gambling, noise and disturbance, and indecent and disorderly conduct or assemblages, preserve the peace and good order, and protect the property of the municipal corporation and its inhabitants.”
State v. Cornwell, 776 N.E.2d 572 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2002). “49(A) states: {¶ 27} “(A) Any municipal corporation may prevent riot, gambling, noise and disturbance, and indecent and disorderly conduct or assemblages, preserve *218 the peace and good order, and protect the property of the municipal corporation and its inhabitants.”…”
City of Tiffin v. McEwen, 720 N.E.2d 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1998). “49(A) provides: “Any municipal corporation may prevent riot, gambling, noise and disturbance, and indecent and disorderly conduct or assemblages, preserve the peace and good order, and protect the property of the municipal corporation and its inhabitants.”
State v. Brownfield, 2013-Ohio-1947. “R.C. 715.49(A); Adams at ¶ 22. In order for an ordinance to be a permissible time, place, and manner restriction, it must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave "'open ample alternative channels for communication of the…”
Akron v. Pouliot, 2011-Ohio-2504. “R.C. 715.49(A) recognizes a municipality’s significant interest in the preservation of peace by allowing for the regulation of express matters such as “noise and disturbance.”
Franchise Operations, Inc. v. City of North Olmsted, 520 N.E.2d 17 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1987). “R.C. 715.49 states in pertinent part: “Any municipal corporation may prevent * * * noise * * *, preserve the peace and good order, and protect the property of * * * its inhabitants.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 715.49(A): 5 cases
State ex rel. Rothal v. Smith, 783 N.E.2d 1001 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2002). “49(A) states that “[a]ny municipal corporation may prevent riot, gambling, noise and disturbance, and indecent and disorderly conduct or assemblages, preserve the peace and good order, and protect the property of the municipal corporation and its inhabitants.”
State v. Cornwell, 776 N.E.2d 572 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2002). “49(A) states: {¶ 27} “(A) Any municipal corporation may prevent riot, gambling, noise and disturbance, and indecent and disorderly conduct or assemblages, preserve *218 the peace and good order, and protect the property of the municipal corporation and its inhabitants.”…”
City of Tiffin v. McEwen, 720 N.E.2d 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1998). “49(A) provides: “Any municipal corporation may prevent riot, gambling, noise and disturbance, and indecent and disorderly conduct or assemblages, preserve the peace and good order, and protect the property of the municipal corporation and its inhabitants.”
State v. Brownfield, 2013-Ohio-1947. “R.C. 715.49(A); Adams at ¶ 22. In order for an ordinance to be a permissible time, place, and manner restriction, it must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave "'open ample alternative channels for communication of the…”
Akron v. Pouliot, 2011-Ohio-2504. “R.C. 715.49(A) recognizes a municipality’s significant interest in the preservation of peace by allowing for the regulation of express matters such as “noise and disturbance.”
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.