Legal Opinion

City of Cleveland v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 2014No. 2012-1616PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.

{¶ 1} This case arises from a complaint for declaratory judgment brought by appellee, the city of Cleveland, challenging the constitutionality of R.C. 4921.25, 1 a law that grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) authority to regulate towing companies as “for-hire motor carriers.” Because we agree with the city that the second sentence of R.C. 4921.25 violates the Ohio Constitution’s Home Rule Amendment, Article XVIII, Section 3, by prohibiting the “licensing, registering, or regulation” of entities that tow motor vehicles, we sever that portion of the statute. We further hold…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Geiger v. GeigerOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  3. State ex rel. Maurer v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. VoinovichOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Canton v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2002

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State v. Noling (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Athens v. McClain (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  5. State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2015

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API