City of Akron v. Smith, 68-48
| Decision Date | 29 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-48,68-48 |
| Citation | 14 Ohio St.2d 247,237 N.E.2d 396 |
| Parties | , 43 O.O.2d 373 CITY OF AKRON, Appellant, v. SMITH; Riddle, Judge, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The General Assembly may limit the time within which an action may be brought in the courts of this state, even where such action is based upon a municipal ordinance.
2. Such an ordinance may not provide for bringing such an action during a period of time greater than the limitation so specified by the General Assembly.
On March 27, 1967, the Tax Commissioner of the city of Akron filed an affidavit in the Municipal Court of Akron which alleged that Sidney G. Smith had failed to file a city income tax return for 1964 as required by city ordinance No. 1298-1962. This ordinance contains penalties for the failure to file a return, and provides that prosecution for such a violation may be commenced any time within ten years from the date the return was due.
Smith filed a demurrer on the ground that the prosecution was not brought within the limitations period provided in Section 1905.33, Revised Code, which reads as follows:
'* * * prosecutions for the commission of any offense made punishable by any ordinance of any municipal corporation, shall be commenced within one year after the violation of the ordinance, or commission of the offense.'
The Municipal Court sustained the demurrer, dismissed the affidavit, and ordered Smith released. The city filed a bill of exceptions which, after minor modifications, was approved by the court. This is a prosecutor's appeal in which the dismissal of the action does not bar further prosecution since the defendant has not yet been in jeopardy.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court. Finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County in Cincinnati v. Faig (No. 8377, rendered without opinion), affirming the judgment of the Cincinnati Municipal Court (145 N.E.2d 563, 77 Ohio Law Abst. 449) which held that a municipal tax ordinance limitation of ten years was valid, in spite of Section 1905.33, Revised Code, the Court of Appeals certified the record to this court for review and final determination.
William R. Baird, director of law, and Alvin C. Vinopal, Akron, for appellant.
Lee C. Davies and Robert K. Lewis, Jr., Akron, for appellee.
The question in this case, whether prosecution for the commission of the offense made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Cincinnati v. Thomas Soft Ice Cream, Inc., 77-67
...in the courts of this state, even where such action is based upon the alleged violation of a municipal ordinance. In Akron v. Smith (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 247, 237 N.E.2d 396, this court held that a municipal ordinance could not extend the period of time, within which an income-tax related o......
-
City of Akron v. Akins
...demurrer filed by counsel for the defendant, we are faced with a problem different from that raised in the case of City of Akron v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.2d 247, 237 N.E.2d 396, wherein the Supreme Court of Ohio, sustaining a judgment of this court, '1. The General Assembly may limit the time w......
-
Smith v. Bodle
...22 Ohio App.2d 44 ... 257 N.E.2d 417, 51 O.O.2d 48 ... SMITH, Appellant, ... BODLE, City Tax Commr., Appellee, et al ... Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit County ... Jan ... Alpeter, Diefenbach, Davies, Koerber & Lewis, Akron, for appellant ... [257 N.E.2d 418] William R. Baird, Akron, director of law, and ... ...
-
City of Cincinnati v. Degoyer
...is unconstitutional as being in conflict with Ohio Revised Code 1905.33. This Court relies upon the case of City of Akron v. Smith, 14 Ohio State 2d 247, 237 N.E.2d 396 decided May 29, 1968, wherein the Supreme Court of Ohio sustained a demurrer to an action brought under an Income Tax Ordi......