Opinion
No. 40634
Decided June 19, 1968.
Municipal corporations — Zoning ordinance prohibiting political signs in residential districts — Absolute prohibition of such signs unconstitutional.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
Appellant brought this action for declaratory judgment in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, claiming that the zoning ordinance of the village of Walton Hills is unconstitutional in that it prohibits the use of political signs on his property located in a residential district. Section 4-1(d) of the village's ordinance No. 1951-3 describes the signs that are permitted in a residential district, excluding any mention of political signs. The pleadings, stipulations of fact and record disclose that defendant officials of the village construe the ordinance to prohibit such signs and they intend to enforce the ordinance, together with its penal provisions, against the appellant or others who fail to comply with the terms and provisions of the ordinance.
Appellant contends that the enforcement of the ordinance, as indicated, violates Section 11, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and prays that such enforcement be permanently enjoined.
The trial court entered judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The cause is before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Messrs. Stotter Elden and Mr. Morton M. Stotter, for appellant.
Mr. Vincent M. Arnold, for appellees.
The absolute prohibition of the use of political signs is unconstitutional. Peltz v. South Euclid, 11 Ohio St.2d 128. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and judgment is entered for appellant that ordinance No. 1951-3 of the village of Walton Hills, to the extent that it prohibits the use of political signs in residential districts, violates Section 11, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and appellees are permanently enjoined from enforcing the ordinance to the extent of its constitutional infirmity as herein indicated.
Judgment reversed.
MATTHIAS, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.