Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio

Appeals Court Strikes Down State Law Due to Home-Rule Conflict

The Eighth District Court of Appeals recently struck down a state law due to a home-rule conflict with a city ordinance in Cleveland.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals recently struck down a state law due to a home-rule conflict with a city ordinance in Cleveland.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals recently struck down a state law due to a home-rule conflict with a city ordinance in Cleveland.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals recently struck down a state law due to a home-rule conflict with a city ordinance in Cleveland.

Cleveland can continue to regulate tow truck companies that operate within the city, according to a 2-1 decision by the Eighth District Court of Appeals that found a 2003 state law unconstitutional.

Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane wrote the decision that found that Ohio Revised Code section 4921.30 “unconstitutionally limits a municipality’s home-rule police powers.”

Under R.C. 4921.30, statewide regulatory authority over tow truck operations was assigned to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Cleveland sued in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in 2009 arguing the statute wasn’t a “general law.” Last year, the trial court ruled that R.C. 4921.30 “is a valid general law that does not unconstitutionally infringe upon the City’s home-rule authority.”

However, in her opinion issued on August 9, Judge Kilbane wrote that R.C. 4921.30 failed to meet each portion of a four-part test developed by the Ohio Supreme Court in a 2005 case (Canton v. State) to determine whether a statute is a general law for home-rule purposes.

She concluded: “R.C. 4921.30 does not meet the test set forth in Canton, so we conclude that it is not a general law. Further, because R.C. 4921.30 is not a general law, it unconstitutionally attempts to limit municipal home-rule authority.”

Judge Patricia A. Blackmon concurred in the opinion.

In her dissent, Judge Colleen C. Cooney disagreed with the majority, writing that she would find that R.C. 4921.30 satisfies each of the prongs of the Canton “general law” test.

“I would find that R.C. 4921.30 constitutes a ‘general law’ and does not violate the Home Rule Amendment of the Ohio Constitution,” she wrote. “The City has failed to meet its burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that R.C. 4921.30 violated the Ohio Constitution.”

Cleveland v. State, 2012-Ohio-3572
Opinion: http://sc.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2012/2012-ohio-3572.pdf
Civil Appeal From: Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 9, 2012

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

Adobe PDF PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.