FHKAD attorneys Daniel T. Downey and Melanie J. Williamson won on a Motion to Dismiss filed in the Sixth Circuit on behalf of the City of Powell, Ohio. Center for Powell Crossing, et al. v. Brian Ebersole, 6th Cir. No. 16-3867, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11031 (June 16, 2017).

The appellant in the case was a City resident who opposed a high-density housing development approved by City Council. The appellant sponsored a petition drive to submit a ballot proposal to the City voters, which included a charter amendment prohibiting high-density housing in the downtown-area. The Southern District of Ohio held that the charter amendment was unconstitutional, and the appellant challenged the decision.

The Sixth Circuit agreed with the City that the appellant, who was a resident, elector, taxpayer, initiative sponsor, and landowner of property near the planned development site, did not have standing. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit concluded that there was no evidence that high-density housing approximately one mile from the appellant’s house would lead to the sorts of injuries asserted by the appellant, such as increased crime, blight, air pollution, traffic, and noise.

In Fairfield County Common Pleas Court, FHKAD attorneys Marc A. Fishel and Angelica M. Jarmusz secured summary judgment for the City of Lancaster and several of its City Council members. Hedges v. City of Lancaster, Ohio, et al., Fairfield C.P. No. 2016CV160 (May 22, 2017).

A lawsuit was brought by the Lancaster City Council President alleging that the City and six City Council members violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act, as well as City Ordinances. The City Council President argued that his standing committee appointments could not be rejected by a majority vote of the City Council members and the alternative slate of appointments, subsequently approved by a majority vote, was arranged in violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Visiting Judge Linton D. Lewis, Jr. ruled that the defendants properly exercised their legislative authority by voting on the standing committee appointments and there was no evidence of a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Presenting only inferences of an Open Meetings Act violation was insufficient to support a claim. Additionally, Judge Lewis found that the City Council President had no authority to initiate the litigation in his professional capacity and lacked standing in his personal capacity.