Legal Opinion

City of Portsmouth v. McGraw

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1986No. 84-1824PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

The sole issue presented is whether a municipality may validly adopt and enforce ordinances requiring its residents who accumulate garbage to use its garbage collection service and pay it a reasonable fee. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the appellate court’s ruling and uphold the municipality’s sanitation regulation.

It is fundamental that Ohio’s cities are authorized to regulate local sanitation. State, ex rel. Moock, v. Cincinnati (1929), 120 Ohio St. 500.3 The home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution, Section 3, Article XVIII, provides that:

“Municipalities shall have…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Porter v. City of OberlinOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Garcia v. Siffrin Residential Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Downing v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. City of Youngstown v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1929

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. City of St. Marys v. Auglaize County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. City of Princeton v. StamperWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Ennis v. City of RayNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  4. City of Dublin v. State, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division2002
  5. Raab v. Town of ScherervilleIndiana Court of Appeals · 2002

3 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