Our Garage & Wrecker Service v. City of Columbus

Decision Date07 June 2001
Docket NumberNo. 00-3409,00-3409
Citation257 F.3d 506
Parties(6th Cir. 2001) Our Garage and Wrecker Service <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 ; Towing & Recovery Association of Ohio, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. City of Columbus; David Wilson; Bobbie Beavers, Defendants-Appellants. Argued:
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

David A. Ferris, CARLILE, PATCHEN & MURPHY, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Susan E. Ashbrook, COLUMBUS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

James G. Burkhardt, OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TOLEDO LAW DEPARTMENT, Toledo, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae.

Before: KEITH, BATCHELDER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, Inc. ("Ours"), an Ohio corporation operating a towing business in the City of Columbus, and the Towing and Recovery Association of Ohio ("TRAO"), a trade association of tow truck operators, brought suit against the City of Columbus (the "City") and certain of its officials to enjoin enforcement of Chapter 549 of the Columbus City Code (the "towing ordinance"), which regulates consensual towing operations. Specifically, Ours and TRAO alleged that the Interstate Commerce Act ("ICA"), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), preempts the towing ordinance, which among other things requires the owners and operators of tow trucks to obtain a license from the City, maintain insurance, and comply with other regulatory requirements. See generally City of Columbus, Ohio, Code ch. 549 (1991). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of Ours and TRAO and permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the towing ordinance. This appeal followed.

In Petrey v. City of Toledo, 246 F.3d 548, 555, 558-59, 564 (6th Cir. 2001), we held that the ICA does not preempt municipal licensing and safety regulation of non-consensual towing operations when a municipality acts as a market participant, but does preempt other regulation not falling within this narrow exception. On appeal, the City concedes that Petrey controls the disposition of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court permanently enjoining the City's enforcement of these towing provisions.

Note:

1. Although the caption of the case has identified the plaintiff as "Our Garage" throughout the course of this litigation, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Weber v. Warden, Warren Corr. Inst.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • April 11, 2012
  • City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 20, 2002
    ...fall within § 14501(c)(2)(A)'s compass. This question, which was not reached by the Sixth Circuit, remains open on remand. P. 442. 257 F. 3d 506, reversed and GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., ......
  • Garage v. Columbus, Case No. 00-3409
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • May 27, 2011
    ...OUR GARAGE AND WRECKER ... SERVICE1; TOWING & RECOVERY ... ASSOCIATION OF OHIO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, ... CITY OF ... BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellees Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, Inc., and the Towing and Recovery Association of Ohio brought suit against the City of Columbus ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT