2018 Ohio 4498
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- The City of Cincinnati challenged portions of 2016 S.B. 331 ("Small Cell Provisions") under Ohio Constitution Article II, Section 15(D) single-subject rule in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.
- The trial court held the challenged provisions violated the single-subject rule and also struck as unconstitutional several other, unchallenged provisions of S.B. 331 (including amendments to R.C. 4111.02 and enactment of R.C. 4113.85).
- While this appeal was pending, all of the Small Cell Provisions were replaced or repealed by 2018 H.B. 478, effective August 1, 2018.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in finding the provisions did not fall within a single subject and (2) the trial court improperly severed and declared unchallenged provisions unconstitutional.
- The appellate court concluded the first argument was moot because the challenged provisions were no longer in effect, but found error in the trial court’s adjudication of unchallenged provisions for lack of a justiciable controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Small Cell Provisions violated the single-subject rule | The provisions were multiple subjects and violated Article II, §15(D) | Provisions addressed a single subject: uniform business regulations across Ohio | Moot — provisions were repealed/replaced by 2018 H.B. 478, so court did not decide on merits |
| Whether the trial court could rule on constitutionality of unchallenged S.B. 331 provisions (e.g., minimum wage, employer-employee relations) | City implicitly treated entire bill as unlawful and sought broad relief | State argued city did not challenge those provisions and there was no justiciable controversy | Reversed: trial court lacked authority to decide unchallenged provisions; judgment vacated |
| Whether courts should decide moot controversies | N/A | N/A — state invoked mootness doctrine | Court applied mootness: no decision on substituted/repealed provisions |
| Proper scope of relief in single-subject challenges | Courts may assess only challenged statutes within a bill | Courts may not adjudicate unrelated statutes absent a justiciable controversy | Trial court exceeded jurisdiction by invalidating unchallenged portions; vacated those parts |
Key Cases Cited
- Cryan v. Cryan, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487 (mootness doctrine; courts decide live controversies)
- Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 257 N.E.2d 371 (role of courts to issue enforceable judgments)
- In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146 (mootness principles)
- Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm., 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 296 N.E.2d 261 (justiciability requires actual controversy)
- State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton Cty., 74 Ohio St.3d 536, 660 N.E.2d 458 (plaintiff must sue an adverse party to present an actual controversy)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, 880 N.E.2d 420 (courts may not decide single-subject challenge as to portions of a bill beyond those specifically attacked)