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 Toledo v. State

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 13, 2017

The City of Toledo, Appellee,
v.
The State of Ohio et al, Appellants.

          Submitted November 21, 2017

         Appeal from and Certified by the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-15-1121, 2016-Ohio-4906.

          Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, Michael J. Hendershot, Chief Deputy Solicitor, Hannah C. Wilson, Deputy Solicitor, and Halli Brownfield Watson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

         {¶ 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 judgment 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).

         {¶ 3} The lack of a majority view means there is no guidance to be gleaned from Dayton-the decision adds nothing but more confusion to our general-law jurisprudence. The trial court is in no better position now than when it first heard the case to determine the constitutionality of the provisions it previously addressed that were not addressed by this court in Dayton. Dayton addressed only three discrete provisions of 2014 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342; numerous others were reviewed by the trial and appellate courts in this case. The provisions not addressed by this court in Dayton, but at issue in the courts below here, include

• R.C. 4511.093(B)(3), which allows municipalities to issue tickets based upon evidence recorded by traffic cameras, but only if they comply with state-mandated ticket-issuing requirements;
• R.C. 4511.096(A), which requires that a "law enforcement officer employed by a municipality" examine traffic-camera-photo evidence to determine whether a violation occurred;
• R.C. 4511.096(B), which makes the fact that a person is the registered owner of a vehicle prima facie evidence that the person was operating the ...

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.