Complaint of Residents of Struthers v. Ordinance No. 87-8482
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
As a preliminary matter, it would appear that the Struthers ordinance is facially unconstitutional under Section 5, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution,1 since *229it was passed as an emergency-measure and was effective “immediately.” As emergency legislation, the ordinance appears to conflict with the thirty-days and referendum provisions of the aforementioned constitutional section. Nevertheless, since this potentially unconstitutional aspect of the ordinance was neither raised nor argued by any party to this action, and since the record does not clearly establish unconstitutionality of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Herbert v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Pfau v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- City of Norwalk v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1938
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- City of Xenia v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Ohio Edison Co. v. WilkesOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.