State ex rel. Taft v. Campanella, 77-454
Decision Date | 22 June 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 77-454,77-454 |
Parties | , 4 O.O.3d 423 The STATE ex rel. TAFT et al., Appellees, v. CAMPANELLA, Auditor, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, George I. Meisel and Robert H. Olson, Jr., Cleveland, for appellee board.
Ford, Whitney, Crump & Schulz, Isaac Schulz and John J. Whitney, Cleveland, for appellee hospital.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., Thomas P. Gill and Karen A. Hassenzahl, for appellant.
Appellant asserts as his sole proposition of law that "the use of $10.6 million of county hospital-improvement 1st mortgage revenue bonds under Revised Code Chapter 140 to retire the outstanding debt of a hospital which is secured by a mortgage on the existing facilities exceeds the scope of a proper 'public purpose' under the Constitution of Ohio."
In State ex rel. Gordon v. Rhodes (1951), 156 Ohio St. 81, 100 N.E.2d 225, this court considered whether the use of revenue bonds to acquire and construct municipal off-street parking facilities constituted a public purpose. We emphasized that courts generally do not attempt a rigid definition of a public as distinguished from a private use, but rather prefer to leave each case to be determined by its own particular circumstances. The modern trend is to expand and liberally construe the term "public use" in considering state and municipal activities sought to be brought within its meaning. The test of "public use" is the right of the public to receive and enjoy its benefits.
The General Assembly, in R. C. 140.02, has declared the public and governmental interest in public financing of nonprofit hospital facilities by determining that:
"The authorizations granted in Chapter 140. of the Revised Code * * * are granted for the public purpose of better providing for the health and welfare of the people of the state by enhancing the availability, efficiency, and economy of hospital facilities and the services rendered thereby, * * * and facilitating the financing of hospital facilities to be available to or for the service of the general public without discrimination by reason of race, creed, color or national origin * * * ."
The parties stipulated in the Court of Appeals that the board, in adopting the resolutions, "had before it the following information:
In his assertion that the resolutions exceed a constitutional public purpose, appellant is either challenging the constitutionality of R. C. 140.02 or the validity of the board's determination that the resolutions do indeed serve a public purpose described in that statute.
There is a strong presumption that statutes are constitutional, and in case of doubt the statute is to be upheld. See Cincinnati W. & Z. R. R. v. Commrs. of Clinton Co. (1852), 1 Ohio St. 77, 82.
In State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher (1955), 164 Ohio St. 142, 128 N.E.2d 59, an appropriation by the General Assembly to nonprofit veterans organizations for rehabilitation of war veterans and promotion of patriotism was challenged on several grounds, including lack of public purpose. In upholding the appropriation, this court held, in paragraph one of the syllabus, that:
"An enactment of the General Assembly is presumed to be constitutional and before a court may declare it unconstitutional it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and the constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible."
Appellant shoulders a similar burden if he questions the board's determination that the use of the $10.6 million to retire debt would achieve or produce the public benefits set forth in R. C. 140.02.
The determination of whether a use of bonds constitutes a public purpose is primarily the function of the bond issuing authority, and will be overruled by the courts only if manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. See State ex rel. Gordon v. Rhodes, supra (156 Ohio St. 81, 100 N.E.2d 225).
In State ex rel. Speeth v. Carney (1955), 163 Ohio St. 159, 126 N.E.2d 449, a mandamus action to compel the county auditor to execute a note for the construction of a county...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, Dykes, Goodenberger, Bower & Clancy
...St.3d 60, 446 N.E.2d 449, 450 (1983); Peebles v. Clement, 63 Ohio St.2d 314, 321, 408 N.E.2d 689 (1980); State ex rel. Taft v. Campanella, 50 Ohio St.2d 242, 246, 364 N.E.2d 21 (1977). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has offered some indication that it does not perceive any violat......
-
Mominee v. Scherbarth
... ... , Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio State Medical Assn ... Spangenberg, Shibley, ... 2d 375, 377, 402 N.E.2d 519 [15 O.O.3d 450]; State, ex rel. Taft, v. Campanella (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 242, 246, 364 ... ...
-
Shover v. Cordis Corp.
...Peebles v. Clement (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 314, 321, 17 O.O.3d 203, 207, 408 N.E.2d 689, 693; State, ex rel. Taft, v. Campanella (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 242, 246, 4 O.O.3d 423, 425, 364 N.E.2d 21, 24. Appellant maintains that R.C. 2125.02(D) violates Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution, wh......
-
Brandt v. Pompa
...power); see also State ex rel. Horner v. Anderson, 41 Ohio St.2d 166, 172, 324 N.E.2d 572 (1975); State ex rel. Taft v. Campanella, 50 Ohio St.2d 242, 246, 364 N.E.2d 21 (1977); State v. Renalist, Inc., 56 Ohio St.2d 276, 278, 383 N.E.2d 892 (1978); Cincinnati City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. ......