Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a taxpayer lawsuit initiated against the city of Cincinnati, challenging the enforcement of Ordinance 419-2008, which required city council approval for appointments made by the city manager to the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) board. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment affirming the city manager's appointment authority under state law, R.C. 3735.27(B)(1)(b), independent of council oversight. The trial court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorney fees, in favor of the plaintiff. The city appealed, arguing errors in the award of attorney fees, the denial of its motion to dismiss, and the issuance of an injunction. The appellate court upheld the trial court's rulings, confirming the taxpayer's standing to enforce public rights when the city solicitor declines to act, and finding that the ordinance conflicted with state law, rendering it unenforceable. The court also justified the award of attorney fees, as the suit included a request for an injunction, and determined that a prohibitory injunction was appropriate to prevent future enforcement of the ordinance. The judgment was affirmed, with the appellate court concurring on all points.
Legal Issues Addressed
Award of Attorney Fees under R.C. 733.61subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Smitherman was awarded attorney fees as his taxpayer suit included a request for an injunction, thereby allowing fees under R.C. 733.61.
Reasoning: Smitherman's suit included a request for an injunction under R.C. 733.59, permitting attorney fees under R.C. 733.61 in such cases.
Conflict between Municipal Ordinance and State Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court concluded that Ordinance 419-2008 conflicted with state law regarding the city manager's appointments to the CMHA board, rendering the ordinance unenforceable.
Reasoning: The court determined that the application of Ordinance 419-2008 to the city manager's appointments to the CMHA board would violate state law, leaving no genuine issues of material fact for litigation.
Issuance of Prohibitory Injunctionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court issued a prohibitory injunction to prevent the city from enforcing Ordinance 419-2008, which was deemed necessary alongside a declaratory judgment.
Reasoning: The court found that a prohibitory injunction is appropriate alongside a declaratory judgment, rejecting the city’s argument that a declaratory judgment alone sufficed as a remedy.
Taxpayer Standing under R.C. 733.59subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized that a taxpayer has standing to enforce public rights when the city solicitor declines to act on a request to prevent misuse of city powers.
Reasoning: However, the court determined that a taxpayer does have standing to enforce public rights, as established by statute, particularly when the city solicitor declined to act on a written request to prevent misuse of city funds or powers.