City of Cincinnati v. Welty
Citation | 64 Ohio St.2d 28,18 O.O.3d 211,413 N.E.2d 1177 |
Decision Date | 26 November 1980 |
Docket Number | Nos. 80-228,s. 80-228 |
Parties | , 18 O.O.3d 211 CITY OF CINCINNATI, Appellant, v. WELTY, Appellee. CITY OF CINCINNATI, Appellant, v. COYNE, Appellee. to 80-230. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Richard A. Castellini, City Sol., Paul J Gorman, City Prosecutor, and Frank H. Prouty, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellant.
Andrew B. Dennison, Batavia, for appellees.
C.M.C. 503-31 provides:
The only issue presented is whether C.M.C. 503-31 bears a real and substantial relation to a proper subject of municipal police power under Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution. * See Cleveland v. Raffa (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 112, 116, 235 N.E.2d 138; Cleveland v. Correll (1943), 141 Ohio St. 535, 49 N.E.2d 412, paragraph one of the syllabus. The parties agree that the purpose of C.M.C. 503-31 is to preserve street surfaces, which is a proper subject of municipal power. See, e. g., Union Sand & Supply Corp. v. Fairport (1961), 172 Ohio St. 387, 176 N.E.2d 224.
Appellees' argument in the courts below and before this court is that C.M.C. 503-31 lacks a real and substantial relation to its avowed purpose because it requires vehicles to be equipped with "tires of rubber or some equally resilient material," and thus outlaws other methods of traction that may not necessarily damage street surfaces. As the party challenging an enactment's constitutionality, appellees must of course overcome a strong presumption of constitutionality, and also show by clear and convincing evidence that C.M.C. 503-31 lacks the requisite nexus to its avowed purpose. State v. Renalist, Inc. (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 276, 278-279, 383 N.E.2d 892, and cases cited therein.
The Court of Appeals ruled that appellees sustained this burden by introducing unrebutted expert testimony that the method of traction employed by appellees' vehicles "caused no more street damage than a conventional car or truck."
We disagree. Appellees' burden was not merely to demonstrate that the enactment had or could possibly have an unfortunate application; rather, it was to show by clear and convincing evidence that C.M.C. 503-31 lacks a real and substantial relation to the preservation of street surfaces. The record and C.M.C. 503-31 are simply devoid of a basis from which the Court of Appeals could have concluded that appellees made this rather substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Cincinnati v. Reed, s. C-840714
... ... An ordinance enacted in the exercise of the local police power is generally considered to be valid if it bears a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare, and is not arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable. Cincinnati v. Welty (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 28, 413 N.E.2d 1177 [18 O.O.3d 211]; Cleveland v. Raffa (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 112, 235 N.E.2d 138 [42 O.O.2d 329]; Cincinnati v. Correll (1943), 141 Ohio St. 535, 49 N.E.2d 412 [26 O.O. 116], paragraph one of the syllabus ... 4 We note that under the doctrine articulated in ... ...
-
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. City of Columbus
...that the enactment bears no real or substantial relationship to a legitimate state interest. See Cincinnati v. Welty (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 28, 29, 18 O.O.3d 211, 212, 413 N.E.2d 1177, 1178. R.C. 2744.05(B) prevents insurers from recovering as subrogees upon insurance claims in which an insu......
-
State v. Theuring
...and convincing evidence that it bears no real and substantial relationship to a legitimate state interest. Cincinnati v. Welty (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 28, 18 O.O.3d 211, 413 N.E.2d 1177, certiorari denied sub nom. Coyne v. Cincinnati (1981), 451 U.S. 939, 101 S.Ct. 2019, 68 L.Ed.2d 326. Addit......
-
Gaston Bouquett, M.D. v. State Medical Board of Ohio
...clearly shown that the enactment bears no real or substantial relation to a legitimate state interest." Grange, supra; Cincinnati v. Welty (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 28, 29. The provisions of R.C. 4731.22(B) setting forth the for revoking a physician's license and for refusing reinstatement rela......