Ohio Supreme Court, 1951

City of Dayton v. Miller

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 31, 1951 · Weyoandt, Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias, Hart

96 N.E.2d 780; 154 Ohio St. 500; 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 500; 43 Ohio Op. 433; 1951 Ohio LEXIS 640 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Schaefer, Unpublished Decision (2-11-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
City of Niles v. Howard (Ohio 1984)
Driscoll v. Block (Ohio Ct. App. 1965)
City of Toledo v. Best (Ohio 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.