Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

City of Springfield v. State

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 13, 2017

The City of Springfield, Appellant,
v.
The State of Ohio, Appellee.

          Submitted November 21, 2017

         Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 2015-CA-77, 2016-Ohio-725.

          Jerome M. Strozdas, Springfield Law Director, for appellant.

          Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Halli Brownfield Watson and Tiffany L. Carwile, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

          Adam W. Loukx, Toledo Director of Law, and Joseph V. McNamara, Assistant Director of Law, urging reversal for amicus curiae city of Toledo.

          Frost 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., concur.

          KENNEDY, J., dissents.

          DEWINE, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by O'NEILL, J.

          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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.