Plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the traffic camera ordinance
McCarthy v. City of Cleveland, 09-4149, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit for failure to state a cause of action under the Takings Clause of either the United States or Ohio Constitution, in plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the City of Cleveland, claiming that the city's decision to enforce its traffic camera ordinance against drivers who lease their cars constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation because the ordinance originally did not provide for lessee liability.
In affirming in part, the court held that plaintiffs have failed to plead a cause of action under the Takings Clause as the challenged ordinance does not seize or otherwise impair an identifiable fund of money. However, the court reversed in part and remanded as the district court's judgment on plaintiffs' state law claims is reversed and remanded as the district court did not analyze plaintiffs' claim which asserted that the city's enforcement of the traffic camera ordinance unjustly enriched the city.
- Read the Sixth Circuit's Full Decision in McCarthy v. City of Cleveland, 09-4149