Opinion

Singleton v. City of Hamilton

  • 33 Ohio App. 3d 187
  • 515 N.E.2d 8
  • 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 10241
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Jun 16, 1986
Status
Published
Author
Koehler
On the bench
Jones, Koehler, Ringland
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 43.2%

The opinion

Koehler, P.J.,

concurring. This court has concluded that there is no duty enjoined upon appellee, city of Hamilton, to regulate or oversee hazardous waste disposal sites within its boundaries. It is further concluded that oversight and licensing of hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities and the regulation thereof lies with the state of Ohio and not the local political subdivision by virtue of R.C. Chapter 3734.

My separate concurrence is predicated upon my belief that political subdivisions of the state are not only relieved of responsibility for such regulation, but are pre-empted by the state, may not enter into the area and have no authority beyond that derived from the state.

The Ohio Supreme Court has recently determined that a home rule municipality has concurrent authority with the state to license, supervise, inspect and regulate hazardous waste facilities within its corporate limits under its police powers so long as the exercise of such authority does not conflict with general laws of the state.

Fondessy Enterprises, Inc.

v.

Oregon

(1986), 23 Ohio St. 3d 213 , 23 OBR 372, 492 N.E. 2d 797 .

Environmental considerations are so significant that in my opinion concurrent authority to regulate divides the responsibility for such regulation and an exception for home rule municipalities produces a conflict with general law.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.