Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1984No. 83-1408PublishedCited by 83 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Brown, J.

The general issue presented is whether Am. Sub. S.B. No. 227 was enacted in violation of Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution which provides in part that “[n]o bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title * * For the reasons that follow, this court holds that Am. Sub. S.B. No. 227 is not unconstitutional; and relator’s requests for writs of mandamus and prohibition are denied.

Perhaps there is no task more grave in the adjudication of civil controversies than passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The legislature possesses,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Attorney-General v. CovingtonOhio Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Hill v. RaeMontana Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State Ex Rel. Test v. SteinwedelIndiana Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Suber v. Alaska State Bond CommitteeAlaska Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by83 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Arbino v. Johnson & JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. BloomerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Groch v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn. v. State (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016

78 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