Taxiputinbay, L.L.C. v. Put-In-Bay, 2023 Ohio 1237

In March 2020 Put‑in‑Bay amended Codified Ordinance §866.01(a)(4) to define a taxicab and limit taxicab dimensions to 80 inches in width and 25 feet in length for permit eligibility.
Taxiputinbay, LLC owns cabs that exceed 80 inches; the Village refused permits for three vehicles, prompting suit.
Taxiputinbay sued seeking declarations that the 80‑inch rule violated the Ohio Constitution’s Home Rule Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause (Ohio Const. art. I, §2), and sought injunctive relief; the trial court granted summary judgment to Taxiputinbay and permanently enjoined enforcement.
On appeal the Sixth District reviewed de novo, treating the ordinance as an exercise of the municipal police power and considering whether it conflicted with R.C. 5577.05 (state vehicle width limits).
The appellate court held §866.01(a)(4) did not conflict with R.C. 5577.05 (no implied state preemption of taxicab regulation), found the width limit rationally related to public‑safety objectives, and reversed the trial court, entering summary judgment for the Village and dissolving the injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §866.01(a)(4) (80" width cap for taxicabs) violates Ohio Home Rule by conflicting with R.C. 5577.05	Taxiputinbay: R.C. 5577.05 permits wider vehicles on public roads, so the ordinance unlawfully forbids what statute allows	Village: statute governs vehicle dimensions on public highways generally; ordinance regulates the distinct subject of licensing vehicles used as for‑hire taxicabs	Held: No conflict. Ordinance is a police‑power regulation of taxicabs and R.C. 5577.05 does not demonstrate exclusive state control; Home Rule not violated
Whether the width restriction violates Equal Protection (Ohio Const. art. I, §2)	Taxiputinbay: 80" rule is arbitrary and irrational, singles out taxicabs while exempting other large vehicles, and affects few permits	Village: width limit advances legitimate public‑safety interests (pedestrian safety, congestion, emergency access); rational‑basis review applies	Held: Ordinance passes rational‑basis review; it is rationally related to protecting residents and tourists
Whether a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the width limit was proper	Taxiputinbay: having prevailed below, injunctive relief was appropriate	Village: injunction improper because Taxiputinbay did not prevail on the merits	Held: Permanent injunction was erroneous; appellate court reversed and entered judgment for the Village

Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (2008) (discusses conflict and conflict‑by‑implication analysis under Home Rule)
Marich v. Bob Bennett Constr. Co., 116 Ohio St.3d 553 (2008) (example of direct conflict between state vehicle law and municipal ordinance)
State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp., 143 Ohio St.3d 271 (2015) (municipal licensing ordinances treated as police‑power regulations)
Village of Struthers v. Sokol, 108 Ohio St. (1923) (articulates test for when an ordinance conflicts with a general law)
Schneiderman v. Sesanstein, 121 Ohio St. (1929) (municipal speed ordinance conflicted with a state speed limit where legislature precluded diminution by ordinance)
Neil House Hotel Co. v. Columbus, 144 Ohio St. (1944) (state regulation of liquor sales preempted conflicting municipal hour restriction)
Lorain v. Tomasic, 59 Ohio St.2d 1 (1979) (state statutory scheme for bingo payouts precluded stricter local restrictions)
Am. Fin. Servs. Assn. v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 170 (2006) (legislature preempted municipal regulation of predatory lending)
Cincinnati v. Baskin, 112 Ohio St.3d 279 (2006) (no conflict where state law set an upper bound but did not preclude local regulation below that bound)
Put‑in‑Bay v. Mathys, 163 Ohio St.3d 1 (2020) (distinguishes right to operate a vehicle on public roads from a municipality’s authority to regulate privileges such as for‑hire use)