Hilton v. City of Toledo
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
The initial question presented herein is whether appellant is empowered, by virtue of the police power conferred upon it in Section 3 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio, to regulate the use of flashing portable signs within its territorial boundaries.
At the outset, appellant asserts that the lower courts failed to accord its exercise of municipal police power the pre*396sumption of constitutionality to which it is entitled and, therefore, erroneously shifted the burden of proof to appellant.
An enactment of the legislative body of a municipality is entitled to a presumption of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Katzenbach v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Lehman v. City of Shaker HeightsSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Packer Corp. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Arnold v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Karches v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. HochhauslerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. TannerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.