233 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio 1967), 41003, State ex rel. Hunter v. Erickson
|Citation:||233 N.E.2d 129, 12 Ohio St.2d 116|
|Opinion Judge:||TAFT, C.J.|
|Party Name:||The STATE ex rel. HUNTER, Appellant, v. ERICKSON, Mayor et al., Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Norman Purnell and Bernard R. Roetzel, Akron, for appellant. Mr. Norman Purnell and Mr. Bernard R. Roetzel, for appellant., Mr. William R. Baird, director of law, and Mr. Alvin C. Vinopal, for appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, C. WILLIAM O'NEILL, PAUL M. HERBERT and PAUL W. BROWN, JJ., concur.|
|Case Date:||December 27, 1967|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Ohio|
Syllabus by the Court
1. The power given to municipalities by Section 3 of Article XVIII to adopt and enforce local police regulations includes the power by such regulations to prohibit (Paragraph two of the syllabus of Village of West Jefferson v. Robinson, 1 Ohio St.2d 113, 205 N.E.2d 382, approved and followed.)
2. The charter of a municipal corporation may lawfully be amended to provide that any ordinance, which regulates the use, sale, advertisement, transfer, listing, assignment, lease, sublease or financing of real property on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry, must first be approved by the electors of such municipality, and that any such ordinance in effect at that time of adoption of such a charter amendment shall cease to be effective until approved by such electors even though such voter approval is not required with respect to other kinds of ordinances.
This action in mandamus was instituted in the Court of Appeals for Summit County
on February 3, 1965. Relator alleges that she served upon respondents, the mayor and members of the Akron Commission on Equal Opportunity in Housing, 'a copy of an affidavit, alleging * * * that in her efforts to locate desirable housing, relator was discriminated against because of her race, color, and ancestry,' and that the commissioners 'declined to process or handle' her complaint. [12 Ohio St.2d 117]
An Akron ordinance, passed and amended in July 1964, prohibits such discrimination, and provides in Section 6 thereof that 'a complaint charging a violation of this ordinance may be made * * * by an aggrieved individual,' and that 'the commission shall make a prompt and full investigation of each complaint.'
After providing for an answer to and a hearing on such a complaint, Section 6 of that ordinance provides further:
'(e) If upon all the evidence presented, the commission finds that the respondent has not engaged in any unlawful housing practice, it shall state its findings of fact, dismiss the complaint. If upon all the evidence presented the commission finds that respondent has engaged or is engaging in an unlawful housing practice, it shall state its findings of fact and shall issue such...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP