City of Dayton v. Miller

Ohio Supreme Court

City of Dayton v. Miller

96 N.E.2d 780, 154 Ohio St. 500, 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 500, 43 Ohio Op. 433, 1951 Ohio LEXIS 640

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 31, 1951

Docket32248

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 96 N.E.2d 780 (City of Dayton v. Miller) 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

City of Dayton v. Miller, 96 N.E.2d 780, 154 Ohio St. 500, 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 500, 43 Ohio Op. 433, 1951 Ohio LEXIS 640 (Ohio 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Appellant stresses the claim that the assault and battery ordinance of the city of Dayton, under which he was prosecuted, is invalid for the reason that municipal corporations have authority, under Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution, to enact only “local police regulations,” whereas the ordinance in question is not such a regulation but is a general police regulation prescribing punishment for a crime.

Municipal corporations of this state have authority to define, by ordinance, the offense of assault and battery and to prescribe punishment therefor. The ordinance in question is a valid enactment. Greenburg v. City of Cleveland, 98 Ohio St., 282, 120 N. E., 829; Village of Struthers v. Sokol, 108 Ohio St., 263, 140 N. E., 519.

There being no prejudicial error appearing on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weyoandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

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