City of Cleveland v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
942 N.E.2d 370 (2010)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
The City of Cleveland (plaintiff) enacted several ordinances—that is, laws specific to the city—that regulated firearms. Later, the state of Ohio (defendant) enacted a law that recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental constitutional right that could only be regulated by state or federal law. The city brought suit, citing an article of the Ohio Constitution that protected municipalities’ home-rule power—that is, the authority to regulate matters of local significance. The city conceded that the ordinance was an exercise of police power that conflicted with the state law. The trial court held that the state law was a general law—i.e., a law that promotes statewide uniformity—and that it did not violate the home-rule amendment of the state constitution. The court of appeals reversed, based in part on a conclusion that because the law failed to address several aspects of gun control, the law did not constitute comprehensive, statewide legislation. Therefore, the court of appeals held, the law was not a general law and constituted a violation of home rule. The state appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lundberg, J.)
Dissent (Pfeifer, J)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
