Legal Opinion
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Beavercreek
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 14, 2000No. 98-2572PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Beavercreek Ordinance 93-62, as amended, which establishes a system of impact fees payable by developers of real estate to aid in the cost of new roadway projects, is constitutional. For the following reasons, we hold that the ordinance is constitutional.
It is well established that “[mjunicipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.” Section 3, Article XVIII, Ohio…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Seasons Coal Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- State v. HawkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS ETC. v. City of Walnut CreekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. PartnershipTexas Supreme Court · 2004
- City of Olympia v. DrebickWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2002
- Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.