Mixon v. State of Ohio

193 F.3d 389 (1999)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mixon v. State of Ohio

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
193 F.3d 389 (1999)

Facts

The Ohio legislature enacted House Bill 269 (HB 269), which created municipal school districts. A municipal school district was defined as a school district that had been subject to a federal court order. Under HB 269, the mayor in a municipal school district was required to appoint the school-board members. Thus, municipal school districts were precluded from electing their school-board members. But nonmunicipal school districts were permitted to elect their school-board members. Before the passage of HB 269, the Cleveland School District had an elected school board with a high turnover rate. Because the Cleveland School District had been subject to a federal court order, it became a municipal school district pursuant to HB 269. Consequently, Michael White (defendant), the mayor of Cleveland, appointed new members to the Cleveland School Board. Tanya Mixon (plaintiff), a taxpayer in the Cleveland School District, brought suit, contending that HB 269 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court found that HB 269 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Mixon appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership