Northern Ohio Sign Contractors Ass'n v. City of Lakewood
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The question presented by this appeal is whether constitutional due process or the prohibition of R.C. 713.15 against retroactive zoning ordinances prohibits the retroactive enforcement of a sign ordinance which requires the alteration or removal of previously lawful signs. We must determine whether the ordinance is a reasonable and lawful exercise of the city’s police power which is rationally related to a legitimate interest in public health, safety, morals or general welfare.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that Ordinance No. 58-79 is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the court…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Franchise Developers, Inc. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Pritz v. MesserOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Village of Hudson v. Albrecht, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- City of Dayton v. S. S. Kresge Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
- C.D.S., Inc. v. Village of Gates MillsOhio Supreme Court · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Richard F. Davet v. City of Cleveland, Robert Vilkas and City of Cleveland Department of Building & HousingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- City of Tipp City v. DakinOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Brkic v. City of ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
- Cippolone v. Hoffmeier, C-060482 (7-27-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- City of Whitehall v. Khoury, 07ap-711 (3-25-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.