Bauman v. State Ex Rel. Underwood

171 N.E. 336, 122 Ohio St. 269, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 269, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 282
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 16, 1930
Docket21969
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 171 N.E. 336 (Bauman v. State Ex Rel. Underwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bauman v. State Ex Rel. Underwood, 171 N.E. 336, 122 Ohio St. 269, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 269, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 282 (Ohio 1930).

Opinion

By the Court.

The single issue in this case is whether the charter city of Akron may, by a majority vote of all the members .of the council, amend a zoning ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that the city planning commission has failed and refused *270 to approve such amendment, and the further fact that the zoning ordinance itself provides that it can only be amended by a three-fourths vote when the proposed amendment has not been approved and concurred in by the city planning commission.

The charter is an authority superior to an ordinance in a charter city, and the council cannot, by ordinance, divest itself of power conferred upon it by the charter. If it could do so in a single instance, then manifestly it could, by a general ordinance, divest itself of all power conferred by the charter, and thereby render the charter practically inoperative.

The charter limits, governs, and controls the council very much the same as the Constitution limits, governs, and controls the General Assembly.

Zoning regulations are police or sanitary. Under the provisions of Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Constitution, municipalities may adopt local police or sanitary regulations if “not in conflict with general laws.” But the provisions of the Akron charter are not in conflict with state law; for Section 4366-12, General Code, yields unrestricted powers to municipalities in respect to zoning, if such powers are granted by the municipal charter.

We have no difficulty at all in reaching the conclusion that Sections 32 and 34 of the Akron Charter confer upon the council full and complete power to enact and amend any zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all the members of the council. The trial and appellate courts reached like conclusions, and the judgments of those courts will be affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Phillips Supply Co. v. Cincinnati
2012 Ohio 6096 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
Homeowners for Fair Zoning v. City of Tulsa
2005 OK CIV APP 90 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2005)
State v. Gaydosh, Unpublished Decision (10-29-2003)
2003 Ohio 5779 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
Phillips v. Calhoun
956 F.2d 949 (Tenth Circuit, 1992)
Shirokey v. Marth
5 Ohio App. Unrep. 150 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1990)
Robert G. Sproul v. City of Wooster
840 F.2d 1267 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)
City of Coral Gables v. Puiggros
376 So. 2d 281 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Hausmann & Johnson, Inc. v. Berea Bd. of Bldg. Code Appeals
320 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1974)
Cleveland Stevedore Co. v. City of Cleveland
241 N.E.2d 290 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1968)
Development Industries, Inc. v. City of Norman
1966 OK 59 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1966)
Nardone v. Ryan
49 Misc. 2d 93 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
State ex rel. Davis Investment Co. v. City of Columbus
175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 337 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1963)
Vito v. Garfield Heights City
200 N.E.2d 501 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1962)
State, Ex Rel. Canada v. Phillips
154 N.E.2d 10 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1957)
State ex rel. Geletka v. City of Campbell
113 N.E.2d 601 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1952)
State Ex Rel. Gulf Refining Co. v. DeFrance
100 N.E.2d 689 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1950)
State Ex Rel. Fairmount Center Co. v. Arnold
34 N.E.2d 777 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
171 N.E. 336, 122 Ohio St. 269, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 269, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauman-v-state-ex-rel-underwood-ohio-1930.