Bioterrorism, Public Health and the Law 
Law 801: Health Care Law Seminar
Professor Vernellia R. Randall

Selected Ohio Cases

 

Syllabus
Resources
Lesson Schedule
00: Intro to the Course
01: Intro to the Problem
02: Public Health System
03: Real Threat?
04: Public Health Law
05: Disease-Reporting
06: Quarantine
07: Model Act
08: Military Presence
09: Health Law Revisited

 

1901 Cincinnati v. Allison, 12 Ohio Dec. 376 (Ohio.Com.Pl.,1901) (The preservation of the public health is a proper and necessary exercise of the police power of the state.) 

1902  City of Lorain v. Rolling, 14 Ohio C.D. 82 (Ohio.Cir.,1902)(Rev.St. 2142 (See Gen.Code, 4463), providing for quarantine grounds for cities and villages, and requiring the consent of the municipality or township in which such grounds are located, if without the city establishing them, does not apply to pesthouses, and a city may erect a pesthouse outside its corporate limits, under Rev.St. 2169 (See Gen.Code, 4090), without obtaining the consent of the township in which such pesthouse is located; such section placing no restriction on a city as to obtaining the consent of municipal or township authorities before establishing a pesthouse.)

1902 Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Board of Health of State of Louisiana, 22 S.Ct. 811 (U.S.La.,1902)( The quarantine laws of the several states were not abrogated by the immigration acts of March 3, 1875, c. 141, 18 Stat. 477, August 3, 1882, c. 376, 22 Stat. 214, June 26, 1884, c. 121, 23 Stat. 58, February 26, 1885, c. 164, 23 Stat. 332, February 23, 1887, c. 220, 24 Stat. 415, and March 3, 1891, c. 551, 26 Stat. 1084, and the regulations to enforce the same; but the safeguards which they create and the regulations which they impose on the introduction of immigrants are ancillary and subject to such quarantine laws. Judgment (1899) 25 So. 591, 51 La.Ann. 645, 56 L.R.A. 795, 72 Am.St.Rep. 458, affirmed.)

1902 Rolling v. City of Lorain, 13 Ohio Dec. 87 (Ohio.Com.Pl.,1902) (Landowners could enjoin building of city pesthouse under Rev.St. 2169 (See Gen.Code, 4090), and 1692 subd. 23 (repealed), as a nuisance, notwithstanding pesthouse had not been built. The construction of a city pesthouse across highway from plaintiffs' land, and 24 and 40 rods from two school houses, was enjoined as a nuisance regardless of danger from contagious diseases.)

1905 Meily v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio C.D. 822 (Ohio.Cir.,1905)(Under Rev.St. 2128 (See Gen.Code, 4432 et seq.), authorizing the board of health having jurisdiction to provide for all persons confined in a quarantined house and directing that the expenses so incurred when properly certified by the president and clerk of the board of health shall be paid by the person or persons quarantined when able to, and when not by the city, an oral contract with the board of health, for necessaries, furnished to a family during quarantine, is binding on the city, it appearing that the account has been certified by the president and clerk of the board of health that the quarantined family was not able to pay.)

1905 Meily v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio C.D. 822 (Ohio.Cir.,1905)(Under Rev.St. 2128 (See Gen.Code, 4432 et seq.), authorizing the board of health having jurisdiction to provide for all persons confined in a quarantined house and directing that the expenses so incurred when properly certified by the president and clerk of the board of health shall be paid by the person or persons quarantined when able to, and when not by the city, an oral contract with the board of health, for necessaries, furnished to a family during quarantine, is binding on the city, it appearing that the account has been certified by the president and clerk of the board of health that the quarantined family was not able to pay.)

1907 Village of Barberton v. Lohmers, 32 Ohio C.D. 684 Ohio.Cir.,1907 (An action was maintainable under Gen.Code, 4432 to recover compensation from village for medical services to quarantined smallpox patients alleged to be unable to pay therefor as against contention that affirmative action of board of health was a condition precedent to bringing of such an action.)

1918 State ex rel. Ohio Hair Products Co. v. Rendigs, 120 N.E. 836
(Ohio,1918) (Under Gen.Code, 3650, conferring certain municipal powers, a municipality may regulate and suppress all places that in its judgment are likely to be injurious to the health of its inhabitants.)

1919 Ex parte Mason, 30 Ohio Dec. 139 (Ohio.Com.Pl.,1919)( Regulations adopted by state board of health under Gen.Code, 1237 authorizing the placing under quarantine a person suffering from venereal disease is valid and does not violate U.S.C.A.Const. art. Gen.Code, 1237 providing that the state board of health shall have "supreme authority" in matters of quarantine means supreme legal discretion or authority and not arbitrary power.)

1919 Leonard v. State, 127 N.E. 464 (Ohio,1919)(The measure of the police power of the state is the measure of the public need, limited only by the state and federal Constitutions.)

1921 State ex rel. Village of Cuyahoga Heights v. Zangerle, 134 N.E. 686
Ohio,1921) (The peace, morals, health, and safety of the people are a matter of concern to the state, and, when the state has enacted general laws providing sanitary and similar regulations, effective throughout the state, the different subdivisions of the government may be required to contribute to the carrying out of the legislation.)

1921 Williams v. Scudder, 131 N.E. 481 Ohio,1921 ) (Public health is one of the most vital subjects for the exercise of the police power of the state.; Primarily the state Legislature is the judge of the need of the exercise of the police power in relation to public health, and in the exercise of that judgment must be given wide discretion.)

1922 Ex parte Company, 139 N.E. 204 (Ohio,1922) The adoption of regulations by the public health council of the state department of health under Gen.Code, 1234-1236, declaring chancroid, gonorrhea, and syphilis to be contagious, infectious diseases dangerous to the public health, empowering the health commissioner of each city to examine persons reasonably suspected of having a venereal disease, declaring all known prostitutes and persons associating with them to be persons reasonably suspected of having a venereal disease, and authorizing the health commissioner to quarantine any person who has or is reasonably suspected of having a venereal disease whenever in his opinion quarantine is necessary for the protection of the public health, held a lawful exercise of the police power of the state.

1926 State v. Thompkins, 664 N.E.2d 926 (Ohio,1996)(Laws passed by virtue of police power will be upheld if they bear real and substantial relation to object sought to be obtained, namely, health, safety, morals or general welfare of public and are not arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable.)

1930 In re Jarrell, 28 Ohio N.P.(N.S.) 473 (Ohio.Com.Pl.,1930)( Health commissioner has authority under 107 Ohio Laws 522, Gen.Code, 1232- 1261-43, to place persons in quarantine who are suspected of having a venereal disease. Where person had been quarantined by health commissioner as suspected of having a venereal disease, court had authority to inquire into question whether or not such person was infected with a venereal disease or that quarantine was necessary for protection to public health.)

1933 State ex rel. Hanna v. Spitler, 190 N.E. 584 (Ohio.App.3.Dist.Hancock.C ,1933)(Apart from powers that may be delegated to it from time to time by the Legislature, a municipal corporation derives its right to adopt and enforce sanitary and other similar regulations from article XVIII, section 3, of the Constitution of Ohio.)

1938 State v. Honaker, 3 Ohio Supp. 143 (Ohio Com.Pl.,1938)( Under interstate commerce clause, state may guard against the introduction of anything that may corrupt the morals or endanger the life or health of its citizens, and to this end may enact inspection, quarantine, and health laws. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8)

1938 City of Cleveland v. Mulloff, 28 Ohio Law Abs. 324 Ohio. App.8.Dist.Cuyahoga., 1938) (Municipalities are empowered to pass regulations pertaining to health and sanitation, since public health and sanitation is within the police power conferred upon municipalities.)

1940 State ex rel. Mowrer v. Underwood, 27 N.E.2d 773 Ohio,1940 (The protection and preservation of public health are among the prime governmental concerns and functions of the state as a sovereignty, and the state, acting through the General Assembly, may enact general laws to that end.)

1943 City of Cincinnati v. Correll, 49 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio,1943)(Laws or ordinances passed by virtue of the "police power" which limit or abrogate constitutionally guaranteed rights must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable, and must bear a real and substantial relation to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public.)

1943 City of Cincinnati v. Correll, 49 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio,1943)(The rights guaranteed by Bill of Rights are not unrestricted but are subject to limitation or abrogation to extent necessary to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of society as a whole, and regulations limiting or abrogating these guaranties are sustained by virtue of a power inherent in governments commonly called the "police power." Const. art. 1, 1.)

1945 Ex parte Kilbane, 67 N.E.2d 22 (Ohio.Com.Pl.,1945)(Regulations of the department of health of Cleveland providing for examination of persons reasonably suspected of having venereal disease and for quarantine of persons found to be infected with a venereal disease, are a lawful exercise of the police powerof the state. Fact that criminal charges against relatrix of selling intoxicating liquor without a license from a drinking establishment were dropped in municipal court did not affect duty of health commissioner of city to quarantine relatrix in accordance with regulations of the department of health when it was established by medical examination while relatrix was detained on the criminal charge that she was affected with a venereal disease. Where address, where woman suffering from a venereal disease was arrested on charge, which was later dropped, of selling intoxicating liquors, was a place designated by the Army and Navy as a focal point for the spread of venereal diseases, health commissioner of city was justified in ordering woman quarantined in accordance with regulations of city department of health. Regulations adopted by Public Health Council of Department of Health authorize the health commissioner of a city to make or cause to be made an examination of a person reasonably suspected of having a venereal disease, and if found to be so infected, and whenever in his opinion the public health requires it, to order such person placed in quarantine.)

1952 Stubbs v. Mitchell, 114 N.E.2d 158 (Ohio.App.2.Dist.Franklin., 1952) (The authority for exercise of broad health power comes under police power inherent in the state, and such power is practically co-extensive with necessities that may arise for purpose indicated. Gen.Code, 1261-42, 5652- 16.)

1953 Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 116 N.E.2d 779 (Ohio.Com.Pl.,1953) (An individual's right to treat his health as he deems best must yield to common good, where a state or local subdivision thereof, in lawful exercise of police power, enacts a public health measure deemed necessary for promotion of health of substantial segment of its population; The right to enact health measure does not depend on presence or prevalence of infectious, communicable or dangerous disease, but public necessity, as determined by legislative body, is the test. The state is competent to pass a public health measure.)

1966 Leet v. City of Eastlake, 220 N.E.2d 121 (Ohio.App.7.Dist.Lake.Co., 1966)(The state and municipalities may make all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate provisions to promote health, morals, peace, and welfare of the community but may not make unreasonable regulations.)

1979 Chickerneo v. Society Nat. Bank of Cleveland, 390 N.E.2d 1183 (Ohio,1979)(Public policy is a principle declaring that no one can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public welfare and must be applied with caution and limited to those circumstances patently within the reasons upon which principle rests.)

1984 DeMoise v. Dowell, 461 N.E.2d 1286 (Ohio,1984) (Protection and preservation of the public health is a prime governmental concern and thus a function of the state. State can directly exercise its police power concerning public health or it may delegate that power to other governmental agencies.)

1991 State v. Anderson, 566 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio,1991)(Any exercise of police power will be valid if it bears real and substantial relation to public health, safety, morals or general welfare of public and if it is not unreasonable or arbitrary.)

 
 
Related Pages:
Home ] Up ] Public Health System Core Functions and the Law ] The Legal Advice of Rumpole the Malevolent ] The Power to Protect the Public Health ] The Current Status of State Public Health Law ] Legal Basis for Large-Scale Quarantine ] The Evolution of Public Health Regulation ] Public Health Practices in the Colonial and Federalist Periods ] Ohio State Statutes ] [ Selected Ohio Cases ] Ex parte Company ] Application re Halko ] Bioterrorism and Public Health Law: the Critical Choices ] Biological Terrorism and Legal Measures ] Legal Authority and Health Disparities ]
Subsequent Pages:
Home ] Up ]
Previous Pages:
Home ] Syllabus ] Introduction to the Course ] Introduction to the Problem ] Public Health System ] Is Bioterrorism a Real Threat? ] Public Health Law and Bioterrorism ] Disease Reporting and Police Powers ] Quarantine and Police Powers ] Model State Public Health Law ] Military Presence and Public Health ] Public Health Law - Revisited ]
Back Home Up Next

 

Last Updated:
 11/30/2002

You are visitor number:
Hit Counter
since August, 2002

Copyright @ 2002. Vernellia R. Randall 
All Rights Reserved