Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Scott v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 2006No. 2006-0971PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the validity of a municipal ordinance authorizing civil penalties against owners of automobiles that have been photographed by an automated-camera system that detects and photographs cars that run red lights or speed. Because the city does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to impose these penalties, we affirm.

Section 413.031

{¶ 2} In July 2005, the Cleveland City Council enacted Cleveland Codified Ordinances 413.031 (“Section 413.031”), which authorizes the use of automated-camera…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Duran v. KelseyOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. McCrone v. Bank One Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State ex rel. Neff v. CorriganOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland HillsOhio Supreme Court · 2006

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntoshOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Lycan v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Lycan v. ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 2022
  4. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. RonanOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Walker v. Toledo (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014

68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API