Bailey v. City of Broadview Heights, No. 10-3853 (6th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseOhio law gives certain mayors jurisdiction to "hear and determine any prosecution for the violation of an ordinance of the municipal corporation, to hear and determine any case involving a violation of a vehicle parking or standing ordinance ... and all criminal causes involving any moving traffic violation occurring on a state highway located within the boundaries of the [city],” OH Rev. Code 1905.01(A). Plaintiff represents a 750-member class in a case under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violation of the Due Process Clause based on the mayor presiding over no-contest traffic violation cases in Mayor's Court. The district court rejected the claim, relying on non-binding Sixth Circuit precedent stating that entering a judgment of guilty after a plea of no contest is a purely ministerial function that a mayor can undertake without violating due process. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that a mayor presiding over a Mayor’s Court is per se unconstitutional. A mayor presiding over a Mayor’s Court does not violate due process when he acts in a purely ministerial capacity.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.