Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1988No. 87-852Published

1DissentH. Brown, J.

The majority, in its syllabus law, states that in construing the language of a city charter, it is the duty of this court to give effect to the words used, not to delete words used or to insert words not used. Having stated the principle, the majority proceeds to a decision which requires the insertion of language into the Cleveland Charter. Thus, I must dissent.

Neither the Ohio Constitution nor state law prohibits the use of tax revenue by a municipality to support a municipal electric utility. The duly elected Council of the city of Cleveland has enacted an ordinance which relieved its…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bernardini v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Fondessy Enterprises, Inc. v. City of OregonOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Dougherty v. TorrenceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Ostrander v. PreeceOhio Supreme Court · 1935
  5. City of Cleveland ex rel. Neelon v. LocherOhio Supreme Court · 1971

5 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