2023 Ohio 195
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In March 2019 the City of Columbus sued the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that R.C. 9.68 and amendments in HB 228 violated the Ohio Constitution (home rule).
- R.C. 9.68 (enacted 2006) recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms and preempted conflicting municipal firearm rules; HB 228 (2018) amended R.C. 9.68 and expanded its preemption language and remedial scheme.
- The trial court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining R.C. 9.68 both as amended by HB 228 and in its original form; the State appealed.
- The City moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the preliminary injunction was not a final, appealable order; the State argued the injunction was final because it displaced a longstanding statute and created immediate, irreparable harms.
- The court analyzed final-appealability under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) (orders granting or denying provisional remedies) and whether Civ.R. 54(B) applied; it found both prongs of R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) satisfied and denied the City’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the trial court's preliminary injunction a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)? | Not final; ultimate relief sought is a permanent injunction, so an appeal after final judgment will be adequate. | Final; it grants a provisional remedy and denies the State a meaningful or effective remedy absent immediate review. | Yes. The injunction is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). |
| Does the preliminary injunction preserve the status quo? | Yes; suit filed before HB 228 effective date and the injunction preserves municipal home-rule-based status quo. | No; R.C. 9.68 (original) had been in effect since 2007 and the injunction displaces that long-established regime. | The court found the injunction altered the status quo and created legal uncertainty. |
| Would the State have a meaningful or effective remedy if forced to wait until final judgment? | An appeal after final judgment would be adequate. | No; enjoining the originally enacted R.C. 9.68 (upheld previously by the Ohio Supreme Court) removes stare decisis protections, creates regulatory uncertainty, and risks criminal prosecutions under new local ordinances. | The court held the State would be denied a meaningful or effective remedy absent immediate appeal. |
| Does Civ.R. 54(B) certification affect finality of provisional remedies? | The City suggested final-judgment-language might be required. | Provisional remedies are not subject to Civ.R. 54(B); Civ.R. 54(B) does not control finality for provisional remedies. | Civ.R. 54(B) is inapplicable to provisional remedies; omission of Civ.R. 54(B) language is immaterial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d 411 (2015) (courts of appeals have jurisdiction only over final, appealable orders)
- Muncie v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440 (2001) (discusses when interlocutory orders may be appealed under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4))
- State ex rel. Butler Cty. Children Servs. Bd. v. Sage, 95 Ohio St.3d 23 (2002) (provisional remedies are not subject to Civ.R. 54(B))
- Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96 (2008) (R.C. 9.68 created broad state-law protection for firearm possession and preempted municipal regulation)
- Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 (2010) (held original R.C. 9.68 is a general law that displaces municipal firearm ordinances)
- Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (2008) (three-part test when a state statute preempts a municipal ordinance under home rule)
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (Civ.R. 54(B) cannot alter finality; procedural certification does not create finality where R.C. 2505.02 does not apply)