Payphone Ass'n v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Michael J. Corrigan, Presiding Judge.
The city of Cleveland believes that the presence of outdoor payphones has facilitated the commission of a number of crimes, including drug transactions and prostitution. So it enacted legislation that comprehensively regulates the placement of outdoor payphones within its borders by requiring a telephone company to obtain a franchise before placing a payphone on a public right of way, and requiring permits for payphones installed on private property. The ordinance also imposes substantial limitations on the use and placement of payphones. The Payphone…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Arnold v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Mominee v. ScherbarthOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- In re MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- City of Canton v. WhitmanOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Hausman v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Devan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
- Gates Mills v. MacE, Unpublished Decision (5-5-2005)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005
- City of Dublin v. State, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division2002
- Lima v. StepletonOhio Court of Appeals · 2013