# City of Eastlake v. Ohio Board of Building Standards

> Ohio Supreme Court · June 10, 1981 · 66 Ohio St. 2d 363

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757234

## Case

- **Full name:** In re Decertification of Eastlake: City of Eastlake v. Ohio Board of Building Standards
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 10, 1981
- **Citations:** 66 Ohio St. 2d 363; 20 Ohio Op. 3d 327; 422 N.E.2d 598; 1981 Ohio LEXIS 521
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757234

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that when local building ordinances are more strict than state statutes, they are in conflict and are superseded by the state statutes

## Opinion text

William B. Brown, J.,
dissenting. R. C. 3781.10(A) provides that rules formulated and adopted by the Ohio Board of Budding Standards “***shall be the lawful minimum requirements specified for such buildings or industrialized units* * *.” (Emphasis added.) R. C. 3781.10 makes it plain to me the General Assembly could not have intended for the Ohio *370 Basic Building Code (OBBC) to supersede any municipal ordinance which imposes more restrictive standards of construction. This view is reflected in the OBBC itself, which defines “Conflict with OBBC” as “ * * *legislation, or a rule, or a condition which is at variance with OBBC to the extent or in a manner that such legislation, rule, or condition permits or constitutes a provision for safety or sanitation which would be, or is less safe or sanitary than is required under OBBC.” (Emphasis added.) Ohio Adm. Code 4101:2-1-02.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757234. Public record. Not legal advice.