State of Ohio Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park Dist For Summit County State of Ohio Wadsworth v. Zangerle, Nos. 237
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HUGHES |
| Citation | 74 L.Ed. 710,66 A.L.R. 1460,50 S.Ct. 228,281 U.S. 74 |
| Decision Date | 12 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | 238,Nos. 237 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO ex rel. BRYANT v. AKRON METROPOLITAN PARK DIST. FOR SUMMIT COUNTY et al. STATE OF OHIO ex rel. WADSWORTH v. ZANGERLE, Auditor of Cuyahoga County et al |
v.
AKRON METROPOLITAN PARK DIST. FOR SUMMIT COUNTY et al. STATE OF OHIO ex rel. WADSWORTH v. ZANGERLE, Auditor of Cuyahoga County et al.
[Syllabus from pages 74-76 intentionally omitted]
Page 76
Messrs. Frederick A. Henry and Luther Day, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
These two cases were argued together and present substantially the same questions. Each suit was brought in the state court by a taxpayer attacking the validity of the Park District Act of the State (General Code of Ohio, §§ 2976-1 to 2976-10i; 107 Ohio Laws, pp. 65-69, 108 Ohio Laws pt. 2, pp. 1097-1100). The one suit related to the park district board of the Akron district, and the other to that of the Cleveland district, and in each suit the taxpayer sought an injunction against the park boards, respectively, together with the auditor of the county where the board revenues and disbursements are handled. from expending public moneys, or incurring obligations requiring such expenditure, and from taking any other official action on behalf of the district. The statute was assailed as being in violation of the Constitution of the state and also of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The
Page 77
validity of the act was sustained by the court of common pleas, and by the Court of Appeals, of the counties where the suits were brought. On error proceedings from these judgments, the cases were heard together in the Supreme Court of the state, and that court was divided in opinion, two of the justices holding the statute to be valid, and five of them being of the contrary view. Section 2 of Article 4 of the Constitution of Ohio provides that 'no law shall be held unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court without the concurrence of at least all but one of the judges, except in the affirmance of a judgment of the court of appeals declaring a law unconstitutional and void.' Accordingly, in these suits, the judgments in favor of the defendants were affirmed by the Supreme Court, and, thereupon, motions were made in that court to vacate the judgments and to enter judgments of reversal. It was then alleged that the above-mentioned provision of the Constitution of the state was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in that it denied to citizens of Ohio due process of law and the equal protection of the laws, and also that the provision was repugnant to section 4 of article 4 of the Federal Constitution assuring to every state a republican form of government. The Supreme Court of the state overruled the motions, and from the judgments of affirmance, and the orders denying the motions to vacate, appeals have been taken to this Court.
The grounds for attack, under the Fourteenth Amendment, on the validity of the Park District Act, relate to the organization and powers of the park district boards. The act provides for the presentation to the probate judge of the county of a petition for the establishment of the proposed district, and, after notice and hearing, the probate judge, with or without diminishing or altering, but without enlarging, the suggested boundaries, is to enter an order creating the district, provided he finds the
Page 78
proceedings to be regular and that the creation of the district will be conductive to the general welfare. The probate judge is then to appoint three commissioners who are to constitute the board of park commissioners of the district, being a body politic and corporate. The board thus constituted is to have power to acquire lands within the district for the conservation of its natural resources, and, to that end, may create parkways, parks and other reservations of land, and develop, improve and protect the same in such manner as they may deem conducive to the general welfare. The board is authorized to lay assessments upon specially benefited lands in an amount not exceeding, and in proportion to, the special benefits conferred by the development or improvement. The board is also authorized to levy taxes upon all taxable property within the district in an amount not in excess of one-tenth of one mill upon each dollar of the assessed value of the property in the district in any one year, subject, however, to the combined maximum levy for all purposes otherwise provided by law. On further petitions, and on the determination by the park board of the advisability of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Basham, 2007 Ohio 6995 (Ohio App. 12/26/2007), No. CT2007-0010.
...that due process has already been accorded in the tribunal of first instance.' State ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist. (1930), 281 U.S. 74, 80, 50 S.Ct. 228, {¶138} An individual has no substantive right to a particular sentence within the range authorized by statute. Gardner v. Flo......
-
Atlee v. Laird, Civ. A. No. 71-2324
...g. Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew, 300 U.S. 608, 57 S.Ct. 549, 81 L.Ed. 835 (1937); Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park Dist., 281 U.S. 74, 50 S.Ct. 228, 74 L.Ed. 710 (1930); Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U.S. 219, 37 S.Ct. 260, 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917); O'Neill v. Leamer, 239......
-
Reist v. Bay County Circuit Judge, No. 19
...663, 81 L.Ed. 843 (1937) ('(d)ue process does not comprehend the right of appeal'); Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park Dist., 281 U.S. 74, 80, 50 S.Ct. 228, 230, 74 L.Ed. 710, 66 A.L.R. 1460 (1930) ('the right of appeal is not essential to due process, provided that due process ......
-
Carilli v. Hersey
...right. Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 536, 47 S.Ct. 186, 71 L.Ed. 394;Ohio v. Akron Metropolitan Park District, 281 U.S. 74, 80, 50 S.Ct. 228, 74 L.Ed. 710, 66 A.L.R. 1460;District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617, 627, 57 S.Ct. 660, 81 L.Ed. 843. ‘Where jurisd......
-
Baldwin v. New York Williams v. Florida, Nos. 188
...could not in its discretion, provide for these various exigencies.' 101 U.S., at 32. See also Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Park District, 281 U.S. 74, 81, 50 S.Ct. 228, 231, 74 L.Ed. 710 (1930); Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91, 98—99, 34 S.Ct. 712, 714—715, 58 L.Ed. 1231 (1914). The di......
-
State v. Basham, 2007 Ohio 6995 (Ohio App. 12/26/2007), No. CT2007-0010.
...that due process has already been accorded in the tribunal of first instance.' State ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist. (1930), 281 U.S. 74, 80, 50 S.Ct. 228, {¶138} An individual has no substantive right to a particular sentence within the range authorized by statute. Gardner v. Flo......
-
Kidwell v. City of Union, No. 04-4153.
...in character, and thus for the consideration of the Congress and not the courts." Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist., 281 U.S. 74, 79-80, 50 S.Ct. 228, 74 L.Ed. 710 (1930) (citations omitted). Prominent scholars have suggested that the Court reconsider this approach. See Erwin C......
-
U.S. v. Lopez, Docket No. 03-1476-CR.
...Constitution guarantees no right to appellate review . . . ."); cf. Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist. for Summit County, 281 U.S. 74, 80, 50 S.Ct. 228, 74 L.Ed. 710 (1930) ("As to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is sufficient to say that, as frequently de......
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...300 U.S. 617, 627 (1937); Willis v. Tennessee, 296 U.S. 533, 533 (1935) (per curiam); Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist., 281 U.S. 74, 80 (1930); Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 536 (1926); Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 327 (1915); Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S......
-
THE INCORPORATION OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARANTEE CLAUSE.
...(93) U.S. CONST, amend. XIV, [section] 5. (94) 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849). (95) See, e.g., Ohio ex ret. Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist., 281 U.S. 74, 79-80 (1930) ("As to the guaranty to every State of a republican form of government ... it is well settled that the questions arising under ......