Submitted November 21, 2017
from the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 2015-CA-77,
M. Strozdas, Springfield Law Director, for appellant.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Halli Brownfield Watson
and Tiffany L. Carwile, Assistant Attorneys General, for
W. Loukx, Toledo Director of Law, and Joseph V. McNamara,
Assistant Director of Law, urging reversal for amicus curiae
city of Toledo.
Brown Todd, L.L.C., Philip K. Hartmann, and Yazan S. Ashrawi,
urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio Municipal League and
the city of Dayton.
1} The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated,
and the cause is remanded to the trial court for application
of Dayton v. State, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,
2017-Ohio-6909, ___ N.E.3d ___.
O'CONNOR, C.J., and KLATT, FRENCH, and FISCHER, JJ.,
KENNEDY, J., dissents.
DEWINE, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by O'NEILL,
WILLIAM A. KLATT, J., of the Tenth Appellate District,
sitting for O'DONNELL, J.
DeWine, J., dissenting.
2} I dissent from the majority's decision to
vacate the decision of the court of appeals and remand this
case to the trial court to apply this court's holding
in Dayton v. State, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,
2017-Ohio-6909, ___ N.E.3d ___. The only
majority holding in Dayton is that R.C.
4511.093(B)(1), 4511.095, and 4511.0912 are unconstitutional;
the majority was fractured as to the reasoning behind the
holding, with no position garnering support from four
justices. Id. at ¶ 46 (French, J., concurring).
It is difficult to see how Dayton, a case with a
bare holding but without an agreed-upon rationale, could
provide any valuable direction to a lower court forced to
reconsider holdings it had already made about statutes
Dayton never addressed.
3} In the proceeding below, Springfield asked for a
declaratory judgment that 2014 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 ("SB.
342") is unconstitutional. The trial court rejected that
challenge, and the court of appeals concluded that the
enactment is "constitutional ...