Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

CITY OF DAYTON, APPELLEE v. MILLER, APPELLANT.

Municipal corporations — Police power — Section 3, Article XVIII, Constitution — Assault and battery — Ordinance defining offense and prescribing punishment — Power of municipality to enact.

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.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MIDDLETON, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DAYTON v. MILLER
(Jan 31, 1951)