Legal Opinion

Dayton v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 30, 2008No. 22221PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Fain, Judge.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, the city of Dayton, has a residency requirement for employees. Defendant-appellee the state of Ohio has enacted a statute that prohibits a political subdivision of the state from imposing residency requirements for its employees. This appeal concerns the constitutionality, under the Ohio Constitution, of the state’s restriction on residency requirements. Specifically, Dayton appeals from a summary judgment rendered in favor of the state and third-party defendant-appellee International Association of Firefighters Lo cal # 136 (“IAFF # 136”). After…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Savoie v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Desenco, Inc. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Christy v. Summit County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. City of Lima v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. City of Lima v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Dayton v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Dayton v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Dayton v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2008

1 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