Legal Opinion

City of Dayton v. Miller

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1951No. 32248PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

Appellant stresses the claim that the assault and battery ordinance of the city of Dayton, under which he was prosecuted, is invalid for the reason that municipal corporations have authority, under Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution, to enact only “local police regulations,” whereas the ordinance in question is not such a regulation but is a general police regulation prescribing punishment for a crime.

Municipal corporations of this state have authority to define, by ordinance, the offense of assault and battery and to prescribe punishment therefor. The ordinance in…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. City of Niles v. HowardOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Driscoll v. BlockOhio Court of Appeals · 1965
  3. City of Toledo v. BestOhio Supreme Court · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API