Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Payphone Ass'n v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided September 24, 2001No. 78266Published

1ConcurrenceAnne L. Kilbane, Judge

On this appeal from the decision of Judge Bridget M. McCafferty, I agree with the majority that the city’s exclusive grant of a franchise to Ameritech alone requires reversal and that the case should be remanded for each section of Cleveland Codified Ordinances (“C.C.O.”) 670B to be separately evaluated for adherence to the limits of the city’s home-rule authority. I write separately, however, because it is a logical inconsistency to decline to address the constitutionality of R.C. Chapter 4939 while at the same time applying it to the city’s detriment in ruling that C.C.O. 670B conflicts…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Hoover v. Board of County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State ex rel. Dix v. CelesteOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. VoinovichOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Beagle v. WaldenOhio Supreme Court · 1997

4 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