Court Opinion

ID: 9472571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:04:14.194701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:01.183032
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring,
I agree with the Court’s holding and its reasoning in this case in full: the financing authority for solid waste projects expressly granted to the Ohio Water Development Agency, when joined with the city’s expressly granted authority to regulate garbage disposal, establishes a clearly expressed state policy permitting a municipal monopoly over garbage disposal. I agree also that the state supervision requirement is met by the Water Development Agency’s authority to enforce its contract with the cdy reqUirjng the displacement of competiyon
Edition, it seems to me that the city’s Powers> standing alone, are sufficient to satisfy the state action exemption. The State Legislature in Ohio has expressly granted to the city the authority to “regu- . garbage disposal, including the authority to establish and maintain garbage disposal plants. The Legislature has delegated to the chief legislative body of the city the Power to set policy on waste disPosal and to oversee the implementation °f that policy. The Legislature gives the c^y both the power to go into the garbage disposal business itself and the power to control competitors by law — hence the power to monopolize. This state delegation to the local legislative body of the power to monopolize and the power to implement and oversee the operation of the monopoly is sufficient to satisfy the “active state supervision” aspect, of the state action test as well as the state delegation aspect,