Flotron v. Barringer
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery county. The city of Dayton, under the authority conferred upon it by Section 7 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio, as amended September 3, 1912, adopted a charter for its municipal government, which charter provides that a commission of five shall constitute the governing body, with power to pass ordinances, adopt regulations and appoint a chief administrative officer to be known as the city manager, and exercise all…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery county. The city of Dayton, under the authority conferred upon it by Section 7 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio, as amended September 3, 1912, adopted a charter for its municipal government, which charter provides that a commission of five shall constitute the governing body, with power to pass ordinances, adopt regulations and appoint a chief administrative officer to be known as the city manager, and exercise all further powers conferred by the charter. At the election held in the city of Dayton in November, 1915, John R. Flotron and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The statutes of this state designate the legislative authority of a municipal corporation as “council.” The charter of the city of Dayton, Ohio, provides for a form of government called the commission-manager plan and confers upon a commission the same legislative authority *187given by statute to the council of other cities of the state, and further provides the manner in which* it shall exercise that legislative authority.
Article XVIII of the Constitution, as amended September 3, 1912, which relates to municipal corporations, refers to “the legislative authority of any city or…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Citizens for a Responsive Government Committee v. WidmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Ide v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1917
- Sanzere v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1952
- State ex rel. Linden v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1917