Cleveland v. State, (Ohio 2011)
Linked as:
Summary
ONE-SUBJECT RULE; R.C. 9.68; MUNICIPAL HOME RULE AUTHORITY; FIREARM REGULATIONS.
Summary
ONE-SUBJECT RULE; R.C. 9.68; MUNICIPAL HOME RULE AUTHORITY; FIREARM REGULATIONS.
Text
[Cite as Cleveland v. State, 2011-Ohio-922.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92663 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. STATE OF OHIO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-618492 BEFORE: Cooney, P.J., Stewart, J., and E. Gallagher, J. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 3, 2011 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
- 1 -
2 Robert J. Triozzi Director of Law Gary S. Singletary Assistant Director of Law Cleveland City Hall, Room 106 601 Lakeside Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Mike DeWine Attorney General of Ohio 30 East Broad Street 26th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Pearl M. Chin Craig A. Calcaterra Assistant Attorneys General Constitutional Offices Sect. 30 East Broad Street 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Benjamin Mizer Solicitor General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 AMICI CURIAE Frederick E. Kalmbach Daniel T. Ellis Lydy & Moan Ltd. 4930 Holland-Sylvania Road Sylvania, Ohio 43560
- 2 -
3 William F. Abrams Karen Lu Bingham McCutchen LLP 1900 University Avenue East Palo Alto, California 94303-2223 Mitchell H. Banchefsky Stephen J. Smith 250 West Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 David Cannon Elizabeth Rumsey Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 James N. Kline Ulmer & Berne LLP Skylight Office Tower 1660 West 2nd St., Suite 1100 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1448 Max Rothal 166 South High Street Akron, Ohio 44308 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J.: {¶ 1} This case is here upon remand from the Ohio Supreme Court for this court to address the remaining assignment of error pursuant to Cleveland v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6318, ¶35. {¶ 2} The City argues in its third assignment of error that Sub.H.B. No. 347 violates the one-subject rule found in the Ohio Constitution. Section
- 3 -
4 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution provides, “No bill shall contain more than one subject * * *.” Specifically, the City argues that R.C. 9.68, a part of Sub.H.B. 347, “does not even attempt to implement actual firearm regulations — it merely seeks to diminish and eliminate local authority.” The Ohio Supreme Court, however, held in Cleveland v. State at syllabus, that “R.C. 9.68 is a general law that displaces municipal firearm ordinances and does not unconstitutionally infringe on municipal home rule authority.” The court found it was part of a statewide comprehensive legislative enactment. Id. at ¶25. Therefore, we find no violation of the one-subject rule. {¶ 3} The third assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 4} The trial court’s judgment that R.C. 9.68 is a general law and that Sub.H.B. No. 347 did not violate the single subject rule is affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- 4 -
5
____________________
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, PRESIDING JUDGE MELODY J. STEWART, J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
- 5 -
Sponsored links
