Grandle v. Rhodes, 35003
| Decision Date | 26 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 35003,35003 |
| Parties | , 1 O.O.2d 225 GRANDLE, Appellant, v. RHODES, Aud., Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
John A. Lloyd, Jr., and James G. Andrews, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellant.
C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., and Hugh A. Sherer, Columbus, for appellee.
The question presented is whether the expenditure from revenues derived from the motor vehicle fuel excise tax for studies and surveys for the underground parking lot, for which provision is made in Section 5538.17, Revised Code, is forbidden by the provisions of Section 5a of Article XII of the Constitution.
An expenditure to make a highway wide enough to enable parking on such highway would clearly be an expenditure for 'highway purposes' within the meaning of Section 5a of Article XII of the Constitution. A purpose of providing parking space on a highway would appear to be no more a highway purpose than a purpose of providing necessary parking space off the highway. State ex rel. Gordon v. Rhodes, 158 Ohio St. 129, 134, 107 N.E.2d 206.
It is contended also, for the first time in this court, that, if the act authorizing the construction of the underground parking lot (Sections 5538.01 to 5538.21 and 5538.99, Revised Code, 126 Ohio Laws, 12) is a highway measure, it is void because it violates Section 26 of Article II of the Constitution, which provides that 'all laws, of a general nature, shall have a uniform operation throughout the state.' Hixon v. Burson, 54 Ohio St. 470, 43 N.E. 1000. Since this constitutional question was not raised in either the trial court or the Court of Appeals, it will not be considered by this court. Village of Clarington v. Althar, 122 Ohio St. 608, 174 N.E. 251; City of Grandview Heights v. Redick, 165 Ohio St. 326, 135 N.E.2d 267.
For the reason that fewer than six members of the court are of the opinion that the statute is unconstitutional, the court cannot so declare it. Section 2, Article IV, Constitution.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
I do not look upon this case as one testing the right of a governmental body to construct a facility for off-street parking or the right of the General Assembly to appropriate funds for that purpose. That right I concede. But this case is one questioning the use of narrowly confined funds for the purpose of facilitating the construction of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grandle v. Rhodes, 35003
...Saxbe, Attys. Gen., and Hugh A. Sherer, Columbus, for appellee. PER CURIAM. When this case was first considered and decided, 166 Ohio St. 108, 139 N.E.2d 328, 329, the majority of this court was of the opinion that the use of the contested funds (the 'Highway Improvement Fund') is not for '......
-
Grandle v. Rhodes
...place the matter before this court for disposition. The litigation at hand arose in this way: As shown by the case of Grandle v. Rhodes, 166 Ohio St. 108, 139 N.E.2d 328, on rehearing 166 Ohio St. 197, 140 N.E.2d 897, Grandle succeeded in preventing the expenditure of $64,500 by the Directo......
-
City of Toledo v. Gfell
...v. Althar, 122 Ohio St. 608, 174 N.E. 251; City of Grandview Heights v. Redick, 165 Ohio St. 326, 135 N.E.2d 267; Grandle v. Rhodes, 166 Ohio St. 108, 139 N.E.2d 328. For error in the charge prejudicial to the defendant, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new Judgment rev......
-
Grandle v. Rhodes
...The case was admitted on motion to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which at first affirmed the Second District Court of Appeals, 166 Ohio St. 108, 139 N.E.2d 328 but which, upon rehearing, reversed the Court of Appeals, 166 Ohio St. 197, 140 N.E.2d 897 and the Common Pleas Court and ordered fina......