Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township to Consider Merger

According to the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission blog, the leaders in Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township have started dicussing a merger of their two communities. According to the blog, Olmsted Falls Mayor Robert Blomquist "wants to conduct a study and create a committee of residents." Both Blomquist and his City's Council President believe that merger would achieve costs savings and allow the Township to lower its property taxes. Although the communities have a joint school system, they have separate police, fire and service departments. If they were to merge, the Plain Dealer estimates that the joint population would reach 19,000, which is about the size of Rocky River, Ohio. In the 1970's Olmsted Falls merged with the Village of Westview.

Ohio's City Ordinances Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Preference

This post is thanks to a tip from Jack Sargent:

Brian DeWitt, writer for the Gay People's Chronicle, wrote a fantastic article listing the ordinances in various Ohio cities which outlaw discrimination based on sexual preference.  These ordinances are particularly important in Ohio, because there is no Ohio or Federal law explicitly prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals and/or transgender individuals.  (Current sex discrimination statutes could possibly be utilized in a case where discrimination occurred based on sexual preference, depending on the circumstances.) 

Some of the ordinances apply to all city residents, and aim to prevent discrimination in employment, public accomodations, credit or housing.  Other ordinances only prohibit employment discrimination against city workers.  The article also identifies ordinances disallowing discrimination in issuing parade permits.  Additionally, sexual preference discrimination laws from other states are examined.

The article is: Over Half the Nation Will be Covered by an Equality Law by Brian DeWitt, Gay People's Chronicle, May 11, 2007.  The article also appears at Google Groups - Transgender News.

Court Challenge to Maple Heights Parental Responsibility Ordinance

A mother charged under the Maple Heights parental responsibility ordinance, Ordinance No. 648.20, moved to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional.  Thelma Ephraim was charged under the ordinance because her son was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, resisting arrest and failure to comply with a police order.  In her motion to dismiss the charges against her, Ephraim argued that the law is vague and overbroad.  Additionally, she asserts that the law violates her due process rights because it interferes with a parent's right to raise their children and the law fails to pass the strict scrutiny test.  She also argues that the ordinance violates due process because it preempted by state laws, specifically ORC 2151.03 pertaining to neglected children and ORC 2919.22 creating the criminal offense of child endangering.

A written decision is expected after the end of June. 

The motion to dismiss and other documents in the case can be viewed at the Garfield Heights Municipal Court Docket Search.  The case is Maple Heights v. Ephraim, Garfield Heights Docket No. 0700016.  To view the documents, you have to download free software: DjVu Browser Plugin .  When you open the document, you may have to click the arrow at the end of the toolbar to get a "page forward" icon. 

To see the Maple Heights ordinance Download maplehtsordparental.pdf.

Sources:  Corrections and Clarifications , The Plain Dealer, Apr. 27, 2007; Parent Challenging New Maple Heights Law by Rachel Dissel, The Plain Dealer, Apr. 27, 2007; Elders Liable for Teens' Actions by Susan Vinella, The Plain Dealer, Apr. 26, 2007. 

See our prior posts:  Maple Heights Parents May have to Pay for Child's Crimes, April 19, 2006; Update to Maple Heights Parental Responsibility Ordinance, Jan. 23, 2007. 

Bill Nixes Mayor's Courts in Small Municipalities

HB 154 proposes to eliminate mayor's courts in communities with populations of less than 1,600.  The cases heard in the closed mayor's court would have to be heard in municipal courts, which return a smaller percentage of the court costs to the city that issued the ticket.  The goal is to eliminate small municipalities and townships from setting up speed traps.  These speed traps can create such huge revenue that the citizens of these small municipalities do not have to pay city taxes. 

Mayor's courts in larger municipalities must be run by court-appointed magistrates instead of mayors.  The bill's sponsor wants to eliminate the conflict of interest when a mayor decides traffic fine cases that benefit the city coffers. 

Sources: Legislator's Bill Tries to Reduce Mayor's Courts by Joe Guillen, The Plain Dealer, Apr. 16, 2007; Ohio Mayor' Courts by Chuck Kallendorf, Cincinnati Law Library Blog, Apr. 17, 2007; Legislation Introduced to Reform Mayor's Courts, Ohio Supreme Court News Release, Apr.19, 2007.

Summit County Holds Residency Ban Constitutional

Summit County judge Jane Bond upheld S.B. 82, which prohibits cities from requiring their employees to live within city limits.  The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas also held the statute did not violate home rule provisions of the Ohio Constitution:  See our prior post: Read the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Decision Regarding City Residency Requirements.  The City of Akron appealed the Summit County decision to the Ninth District.  See Akron Appeals Worker Residency Ruling, Akron Beacon Journal, Apr. 4, 2007.

The opinion is City of Akron v. State of Ohio (March 30, 2007), Summit County Common Pleas Case Nos. CV2006-05-2759, CV2006-05-2797.  The appeals court case number is CA-23660.  The documents filed in the common pleas case and the appeal can be viewed at the Summit County Clerk of Courts case search. 

Ohio Supreme Court Denies Mandamus to Stop Residency Requirements

State ex rel. Beane v. Dayton, 2007-Ohio-811:  A police union and a union member filed a mandamus action against the City of Dayton to force the City to follow Ohio Rev. Code 9.481.  This recently enacted code section prohibits cities from imposing residency requirements on its employees.  The Ohio Supreme Court held that mandamus relief can not be granted if the cause of action is actually a request for a declaratory judgment that a statute is constitutional and a rquest for a prohibitory injunction. The Ohio Supreme Court rendered a similar decision in State ex rel. Sheppard v. City of Cleveland, 2006-Ohio-1329.  Source:  Mandamus Action Wrong Way for City Employees to Challenge Residency Requirement, Opinion Summary, March 14, 2007;    

Read the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Decision Regarding City Residency Requirements

To read the Cuyahoga Common Pleas opinion concerning city residency requirements, Download residency_case.doc .  The ruling pertains to: City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, Case No. 2006-590414 and State of Ohio ex rel. Cleveland Fire Fighters Assoc. Loc. 93 v. Jackson, Case No. 2006-590463.  Judge Peter J.Corrigan held that Ohio S.B. 82 is constitutional.  SB 82 prohibits municipalities from requiring their employees to live in the city.  See our prior post: Cuyahoga Common Pleas Holds State Can Eliminate City Residency Requirements.   

Cuyahoga Common Pleas Holds State Can Eliminate City Residency Requirements

The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court upheld Ohio S.B. 82, which prohibits cities from requiring  employees to live in the city.  The City of Cleveland challenged the law, saying it unconstitutionally limited cities' powers of home rule.  The Common Pleas Court held that the state's power to enact legislation for employee welfare overrides the cities' home rule power.  The City plans to appeal.  Source:   Court Axes Cleveland Residency Rule by Olivera Perkins, The Plain Dealer, Feb. 25, 2007. 

See our prior posts: City of Cleveland Files Suit Over State's Elimination of Residency Requirements and Unions Will Sue to Enforce New Ohio Law Banning Residency Requirements.

Shaker Heights Proposed Ordinance Holds Landlords Responsible for Tenant's Crimes

A proposed Shaker Heights ordinance will hold landlords responsible for the criminal acts of their tenants committed within 1,000 feet of the rental property.  The language will be added to an existing ordinance whereby the city can charge property owners for police response to numerous nuisance crimes.  Under the proposed ordinance, landlords could lose their rental permits if their tenants commit crimes within 1,000 feet of the property.  The landlord can reapply for a license, for a fee.  The re-applying landlord may have to take classes or hire a company to screen tenants. 

The city of Bedford has adopted an ordinance holding parents responsible for the repeated criminal acts of their children.  Parents may be subject to a fine or even a prison term. The Bedford ordinance is similar to an ordinance enacted in Maple Heights.  See our prior post: Update to Maple Heights Parental Responsibility Ordinance

Source: Shaker Heights May Penalize Landlords for Tenants' Crimes by Thomas Ott, The Plain Dealer, Feb. 25, 2007. 

Ohio Sixth District Says Cities Can Restrict Concealed Carry

Reversing a decision of the Toledo Municipal Court, the Sixth District held that the City of Toledo could ban concealed weapons in parks.  City of Toledo v. Beatty, (Sept. 1, 2006), 6th Dist. No. L-05-1319.  Cities' home rule authority allows the ban, even though the city's rules are stricter than the rules set out in Ohio's concealed carry law.  Source:  Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Guns in Toledo Parks by John Skewer, The Plain Dealer, Sept. 3, 2006. 

Also see our prior post:  Can Cities Impose More Restrictions on Concealed Carry?  Proposed Ohio HB 347 will amend the concealed carry statute to clarify that state law prevails.  HB 347 was passed by the Ohio House, and is currently pending in the Senate.