City of Columbus v. Molt
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellant argues that R. C. 4511.99(F) is a general law, as contemplated by Section 3, Article XVIII, Constitution, with which municipal police legislation (Section 2133.99, Columbus City Code) must not conflict, and that the Columbus penalty ordinance must fall because it is substantially in conflict with R. C. 4511.99(F).
It is further argued by appellant that R. C. 4511.06, which provides for the uniform application and precedence of traffic laws, has as its purpose the creation of a uniform traffic law throughout Ohio and requires uniform application of R. C. 4511.99(F) as a general law,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Village of West Jefferson v. RobinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- City of Youngstown v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1929
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mendenhall v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- City of Cincinnati v. ThompsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
- City of Cincinnati v. ShannonOhio Court of Appeals · 1979
- City of Columbus v. KemperOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Allgood v. LarsonUtah Supreme Court · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.