Wilson v. City of Cincinnati
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
Appellant contends initially that the warranty established by subsection (D) of Ordinance No. 556-1973 is contrary to the common law in this state and, therefore, represents an unconstitutional exercise of the city’s police power.
Section 3 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio, commonly known as the “home rule” amendment, provides:
“Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.”
in the instant case,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- See v. City of SeattleSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Delman v. City of Cleveland HeightsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Gerijo, Inc. v. City of FairfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Village of Hudson v. Albrecht, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. HooverOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Downing v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1982
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.