Columbus v. State

Citations

• 223 N.E.3d 540
• 2023 Ohio 2858

Syllabus

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION — CIV.R. 65(D): The trial court abused its discretion by finding the City of Columbus was entitled to a preliminary injunction against the original and amended versions of R.C. 9.68, Ohio's Firearms-Uniformity Law. The preliminary injunction order contained no specific findings regarding the City's likelihood of success on its constitutionality challenge to original R.C. 9.68 and was impermissibly overboard in that it enjoined the State from enforcing all of 2018 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 228's modifications to R.C. 9.68 despite the trial court's narrow finding that only two limited components of the amended statute infringed on the City's home-rule authority—thus violating the form and specificity requirements of Civ.R. 65(D). Further, in finding the four preliminary-injunction factors weighed in favor of the City's March 2019 request to temporarily enjoin the State's enforcement of amended R.C. 9.68—which took effect in December 2019—the trial court relied on stale evidence when it evaluated the irreparable harm, justifiable-harm-to-third-parties, and service-of-public-interest factors, and misstated the City's burden of proof as to the last two. Because evidence in the record did not clearly and convincingly support the trial court's finding, in 2022, that the City was entitled to a preliminary injunction against the original or amended versions of R.C. 9.68 almost four years after the City requested it, its issuance constituted an abuse of discretion. Moreover, as to the preliminary injunction against 2018 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 228 in its entirety, the City conceded error on appeal because the other 14 statutory provisions affected by its enactment were never challenged in the trial court. Judgment reversed, preliminary injunction vacated, and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.