No ordinance, resolution, or bylaw shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. No bylaw or ordinance, or section thereof, shall be revived or amended, unless the new bylaw or ordinance contains the entire bylaw, ordinance, or section revived or amended, and the bylaw, ordinance, or section so amended shall be repealed. Each such bylaw, resolution, and ordinance shall be adopted or passed by a separate vote of the legislative authority of a municipal corporation and the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the journal.
Mishr v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 667 N.E.2d 365 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 3דThe issue presented is whether, based on those specific facts, R.C. 731.19 operates to yield a conclusion that appellee’s property is unzoned.”
Huebner v. Miles, 636 N.E.2d 348 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3ד19 states that “[n]o bylaw or ordinance, or section thereof, shall be revived or amended, unless the new bylaw or ordinance contains the entire bylaws, ordinance, or section revived or amended, and the bylaw, ordinance or section so amended shall be repealed.”
Korn v. Dunahue, 233 N.E.2d 600 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 6ד1380 violates Section 731.19, Revised Code, by containing more than one subject.”
Mishr v. Poland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1996 Ohio 400 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 7ד] Municipal corporation—Ordinance changing zoning designation repealed— Repealing ordinance does not specifically provide that property is to return to previous zoning designation as required by R.C. 731.19— Property reverts to previous zoning classification.”
State ex rel. Hazel v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 685 N.E.2d 224 (Ohio 1997). “A final asserted reason to invalidate the proposed ordinance that the ordinance violates R.C. 731.19 by containing more than one subject, addresses the substance or propriety of the ordinance rather than the validity and sufficiency of the initiative petition under the pertinent…”
State Ex Rel. Kilby v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 2012 Ohio 4310 (Ohio 2012). “2d 224 (1997) (claim that proposed ordinance violates R.C. 731.19 by containing more than one subject is premature prior to the electorate approval of the ordinance).”
Brady v. Carlson, 457 N.E.2d 1182 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2דAppellant alleges that as a matter of law the city ordinance titled “Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract to Sell Real Estate” is violative of R.C. 731.19. That statute states that an ordinance shall not contain more than one *26 subject, which shall be clearly…”
State ex rel. Hazel v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 1997 Ohio 129 (Ohio 1997). “{¶ 16} A final asserted reason to invalidate the proposed ordinance that the ordinance violates R.C. 731.19 by containing more than one subject, addresses the 6 January Term, 1997 substance or propriety of the ordinance rather than the validity and sufficiency of the initiative…”
Creed v. City of Hubbard, 605 N.E.2d 415 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4דR.C. 731.19 provides as follows: “No ordinance, resolution, or bylaw shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”
Baker v. Beachwood, 184 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 12דThe principal argument as to the invalidity of the ordinance is the alleged failure of the city council in the enactment of the ordinance in question to set forth the exact language of a prior ordinance which was being amended and to repeal any part of the earlier ordinance, as…”
City of Jackson v. Stacey, 644 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6ד” The city of Jackson says it has complied with the requirements of R.C. 731.19 and R.C. 731.23. It argues that by enactment under Ordinance 10-91, Section 335.”
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.