Legal Opinion
American Financial Services Ass'n v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 20, 2006No. Nos. 2005-0160 and 2005-0161PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Donnell, J.
{¶ 1} We are called upon again to consider the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution — this time in connection with predatory lending, the subject of legislation enacted by the Ohio General Assembly commonly known as Sub.H.B. No. 386 and of local ordinances in the cities of Dayton and Cleveland.
{¶ 2} This case has been certified to us as a conflict between the Second District Court of Appeals, which determined, in its comprehensive review of the law in this field, that predatory lending was not a proper subject for regulation by local ordinance, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State ex rel. Evans v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Schneiderman v. SesansteinOhio Supreme Court · 1929
- Village of West Jefferson v. RobinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- Fondessy Enterprises, Inc. v. City of OregonOhio Supreme Court · 1986
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of ClevelandCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- Mendenhall v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
- Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. City of ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Gesler v. City of Worthington Income Tax Board of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 2013
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.