[Cite as Cincinnati v. Ohio, 2018-Ohio-4498.] 

 

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Vacated 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 7, 2018 

Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor, Marion E. Haynes and Andrew W. Garth, 

Chief Counsel, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, Sarah E. Pierce and Renata Y. Staff, 

Assistant Attorneys General, for Defendant-Appellant. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 vs. 

THE STATE OF OHIO, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-170593 

 TRIAL NO. A-1701966 

O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 2

MILLER, Judge.

{¶1} The state of Ohio challenges the trial court’s judgment that certain 

provisions of 2016 S.B. 331 (“S.B. 331”) violated the “single-subject” rule in Article II, 

Section 15(D) of the Ohio Constitution. In one assignment of error, the state 

contends (1) that the trial court erred in holding that the provisions challenged by the 

city did not fall within the bill’s single subject of, according to the state, creating 

uniform business regulations across Ohio; and (2) that the trial court inappropriately 

severed unchallenged provisions of S.B. 331. The state’s first argument is moot. The 

second has merit. 

{¶2} Those parts of S.B. 331 challenged by the city, collectively referred to 

as the bill’s “Small Cell Provisions,” amended R.C. Chapter 4939. These 

amendments are no longer in effect. All have been replaced or repealed by 2018 H.B. 

478, effective August 1, 2018. It is well-established that “[t]he role of courts is to 

decide adversarial legal cases and to issue judgments that can be carried into 

effect.” Cryan v. Cryan, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9, 

citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970). “Under the 

mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases in which there is no longer 

an actual legal controversy between the parties.” Id., citing In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 

572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37. Since the challenged provisions are no 

longer in effect, the first issue raised by the city is moot and we do not address it. 

{¶3} The trial court also struck as unconstitutional several provisions that 

had not been challenged by the city. This included S.B. 331’s amendments to R.C. 

4111.02, the minimum wage statute, and enactment of R.C. 4113.85, which relates to 

employer-employee relations. Article IV, Section 4(B) of the Ohio Constitution gives 

the courts of common pleas original jurisdiction “over all justiciable matters” 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 3 

properly before them. Justiciability is a concept related to mootness, in that there 

must be an actual controversy between the parties. Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor 

Control Comm., 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 97-98, 296 N.E.2d 261 (1973); Waldman v. 

Pitcher, 70 N.E.3d 1025, 2016-Ohio-5909, ¶ 20-21 (1st Dist.). “Actual controversies 

are presented only when the plaintiff sues an adverse party.” State ex rel. Barclays 

Bank PLC v. Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton Cty., 74 Ohio St.3d 536, 542, 660 

N.E.2d 458 (1996). 

{¶4} The city did not sue for a judgment concerning the constitutionality of 

the minimum wage or employer-employee relations law enacted by S.B. 331. Hence, 

there was no justiciable controversy relating to those provisions, and the trial court 

was without authority to rule on their constitutionality. See Arbino v. Johnson & 

Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, 880 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 79 (where only 

three specific statutes within a bill had been challenged under the single-subject rule, 

the court could not determine whether the bill violated the single-subject rule as a 

whole).

{¶5} We therefore sustain the state’s assignment of error, in part, and 

vacate the trial court’s judgment. 

Judgment vacated.

MOCK, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., concur. 

Please note: 

The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.