Weir v. Rimmelin
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
This appeal centers on the authority of different governmental entities to regulate outdoor advertising billboards within a munici*56pality’s corporate boundaries. The precise issue is whether a city has exclusive authority to enforce the regulations pertaining to such devices. Based on the following, we hold that where state and local regulations concerning unlawful conduct do not conflict, the state and municipality have concurrent authority under the police power to enforce their respective directives inside the corporate limits of the city.
In 1965, Congress passed the Highway Beautification…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hayes v. Michigan Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Zucht v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Markham Advertising Co. v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1968
- Schell v. DuBoisOhio Supreme Court · 1916
- State ex rel. Evans v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Fondessy Enterprises, Inc. v. City of OregonOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- City of Kettering v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. ParkerOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- City of Dayton v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.