Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. State
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Sundermann, Judge.
{¶ 1} The state of Ohio and Colerain Township appeal the trial court’s judgment that denied Colerain’s motion to intervene and that struck revisions to R.C. 303.211 and 519.211 as unconstitutional. We conclude that Colerain was not an interested party under R.C. 2721.12, so the trial court had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion when it denied Colerain’s motion to intervene. We further conclude that the trial court properly determined that the revisions to R.C. 303.211 and 519.211 violated the one-subject rule.1 We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Driscoll v. Austintown AssociatesOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- State ex rel. Dix v. CelesteOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Beagle v. WaldenOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Simmons-Harris v. GoffOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Klein v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- City of Riverside v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Dayton v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
- Kljun v. MorrisonOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- Cleveland v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Allied Health & Chiropractic, L.L.C. v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2024
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.