Legal Opinion

Weir v. Rimmelin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1984No. 84-246Published

1DissentClifford F. Brown, J.

The majority opinion concedes that the city of Toledo has concurrent authority to enforce advertising regulations within city limits. Proceeding from this premise it should be *59noted that R.C. 5516.11 permits substitution within industrially and/or commercially zoned areas of a local zoning authority’s regulations controlling the “size, lighting, and spacing of outdoor advertising devices which are not inconsistent with the intent of this act [R.C. Chapter 5516] and which are a part of a bona fide commercial and industrial zoning plan,” in lieu of the controls encompassed by R.C. 5516.02(D),…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1977
  2. Matsuo Yoshida and Chisato Yoshida v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
  3. Art Neon Co. v. The City and County of Denver, a Municipal Corporation, and Anthony H. Jansen, Gump Glass Co., Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974
  4. City of Toledo v. CusterOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Ohio Liquid Disposal, Inc. v. DaweOhio Court of Appeals · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API