Mullins v. City of St. Marys
2017 Ohio 8934
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shawn and Veronica Mullins appealed St. Marys’ designation of their dog, Titan, as a “Dangerous Dog” under St. Marys City Ordinance (SMCO) 505.15(a)(2). The City’s notice referenced incidents on April 1 and April 15, 2017.
- The Mullins argued the local ordinance conflicted with Ohio Revised Code Chapter 955 and failed to define key terms (e.g., “without provocation,” “serious injury”), depriving owners of proper notice.
- The City defended the ordinance under its Home Rule police powers and argued no conflict with state law.
- The Auglaize County Municipal Court ruled for the Mullins, finding the local ordinance conflicted with and was preempted by state law; it also found the ordinance overbroad and vague in key definitions.
- The City appealed, raising two assignments of error challenging the trial court’s ruling that the ordinance conflicted with state law and overreached in scope.
- The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court: it concluded SMCO 505.15 was broader than R.C. Chapter 955, omitted statutory definitions and exemptions, and therefore conflicted with state law under the Home Rule/contrary-directions analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mullins) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SMCO 505.15 conflicts with Ohio’s dog-control statutes (Chapter 955) | SMCO is broader than state law, omits statutory definitions/exemptions, and therefore is preempted | City contends ordinance is valid Home Rule exercise and not in conflict with state law | Held: Ordinance conflicts with and is preempted by state law; municipal ordinance invalidated |
| Whether SMCO 505.15 is overbroad/vague in scope and drafting | Ordinance is overreaching and lacks key definitions (e.g., “without provocation,” “serious injury”), creating unintended consequences and inadequate notice | City maintains local tailoring is permissible under police powers | Held: Ordinance is unartfully drafted, lacks precision and exemptions in statute, and overreaches—supports invalidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Andreyko v. Cincinnati, 153 Ohio App.3d 108 (1st Dist. 2003) (constitutional questions reviewed de novo; presumption of constitutionality discussed)
- Univ. Hts. v. O’Leary, 68 Ohio St.2d 130 (Ohio 1981) (courts presume constitutionality of legislative enactments)
- Village of Struthers v. Sokol, 108 Ohio St. (Ohio) (contrary-directives test: conflict exists when ordinance permits what statute forbids or vice versa)
- City of Cincinnati v. Hoffman, 31 Ohio St.2d 163 (Ohio) (state statute need only positively permit what ordinance prohibits, or vice versa, for conflict)
- Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 2008) (three-part contrary-directives conflict analysis explained)