You are here

State ex rel. Lehmann v. Cmich

Case Name: 
State ex rel. Lehmann v. Cmich
Plaintiff: 
Lehmann
Defendant: 
Cmich
Citation: 

23 Ohio St. 2d 11; 260 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio 1970)

Year: 
1970
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio
Abstract: 

Relator sought a writ of prohibition against officers of the City of Canton, which was about to start fluoridating its water supply under state law. The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that: (1) a writ of prohibition was improper where, as here, the officer was unable to exercise any discretion, and (2) a writ of prohibition was inappropriate where there was an adequate remedy at law.

State: 

Kraus v. City of Cleveland

Case Name: 
Kraus v. City of Cleveland
Plaintiff: 
Kraus
Defendant: 
City of Cleveland, et al.
Citation: 

163 Ohio St. 559; 127 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio 1955)

Year: 
1955
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio
Abstract: 

Plaintiff brought an action seeking a permanent injunction restraining the city from enforcing a fluoridation ordinance. Plaintiff argued that the ordinance infringed upon his fundamental liberties and was enacted in excess of the city’s authority under state law. According to plaintiff, the ordinance did not promote public health because it did not concern contagious or infectious disease. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected plaintiff’s arguments, holding that the prevention of dental caries was a proper public health matter for the city to regulate, and that the introduction of fluoride into the municipal drinking water did not violate plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Matthias J

Crotty v. City of Cincinnati

Case Name: 
Crotty v. City of Cincinnati
Plaintiff: 
Crotty
Defendant: 
City of Cincinnati
Citation: 

50 Ohio St. 2d 27; 361 N.E.2d 1340 (Ohio 1977)

Year: 
1977
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio, First Appellate District
Abstract: 

Taxpayers and water users filed an action in trial court alleging that the City of Cincinnati’s contemplated fluoridation program, as directed by the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s order, would deprive them of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs’ appeal was before the Ohio Supreme Court upon the sole issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the applicability of Canton v. Whitman, 44 Ohio St. 2d 62; 337 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1975). The court held that plaintiffs’ argument that fluoridation infringed upon religious freedom and equal protection were matters that could have been litigated in the prior action. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claim that fluoride is a carcinogen, because state law provided an exclusive statutory scheme for review of the EPA Director’s actions by the Environmental Review Board. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.

State: 

City of Canton v. Maynard

Case Name: 
City of Canton v. Maynard
Plaintiff: 
City of Canton, et al.
Defendant: 
Robert H. Maynard, et al.
Citation: 

766 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1985)

Year: 
1985
Court Name: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Abstract: 

Plaintiff city filed an action against the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally enforcing the state’s fluoridation laws. According to plaintiff, the statute violated federal equal protection and due process rights on the grounds that the Ohio EPA was not enforcing the fluoridation requirement against cities that opted under state statute to hold a referendum not to fluoridate their water supplies. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court ‘s determination that plaintiffs’ case was barred under principles of res judicata.

State: 

City of Canton v. Whitman

Case Name: 
City of Canton v. Whitman
Plaintiff: 
City of Canton
Defendant: 
Whitman
Citation: 

44 Ohio St. 2d 62; 337 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1975)

Year: 
1975
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio
Abstract: 

The City of Canton challenged the Ohio Director of Environmental Protection ‘s order directing the city to begin fluoridating its water, as required by state law. The city argued that the state did not have the authority to require it to fluoridate a municipally-owned-and-operated water supply, and that the state law mandating fluoridation was not a valid exercise of state police power. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected plaintiffs’ claims, holding that fluoridation was a proper subject for the exercise of the state police power, and that the state mandate did not unreasonably restrict, limit, or otherwise interfere with the operation of a municipal utility.

Case Tags: 
State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Stern

Brown v. City of Canton

Case Name: 
Brown v. City of Canton
Plaintiff: 
Brown
Defendant: 
City of Canton
Citation: 

64 Ohio St. 2d 182; 414 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio 1980)

Year: 
1980
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio
Abstract: 

The Ohio Attorney General brought this action in the Ohio Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus directing the City of Canton to comply with the Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s order requiring the city to fluoridate its water system as mandated by state statute. The court of appeals denied the writ on the basis that it did not have original jurisdiction over the matter, finding that appellants had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law because the state fluoridation statute authorized the attorney general to bring an action for an injunction. The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeals, finding that a mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy rather than a plain and adequate remedy. The supreme court reversed the court of appeals and issued a writ of mandamus to force the city to comply with the order to fluoridate.

Case Tags: 
State: 

Board of Co. Comm. Ottawa County v. Marblehead

Case Name: 
Board of Co. Comm. Ottawa County v. Marblehead
Plaintiff: 
Board of County Commissioners of Ottawa County
Defendant: 
Village of Marblehead et al.
Citation: 

86 Ohio St. 3d 43; 711 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio 1999)

Year: 
1999
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio
Abstract: 

This case does not deal with a fluoridation challenge, but it cites to Canton v. Whitman 44 Ohio St.2d 62, 337 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1975) for the proposition that a statute enacted to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the public can override the municipality’s authority if the statute does not substantially interfere with the municipality’s constitutionally granted power. The action deals with a dispute between a municipality and a county sewer district that both wanted to provide water service to a disputed area. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld a statute that enabled established county sewer districts to complete existing county water service projects when territory within the project area acquires municipality status through annexation during the pendency of the county project.

Case Tags: 
State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Cook J

Pages

Subscribe to Fluoride Legislative User Information Database (FLUID) RSS