TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Traditions Tavern, et al. v. City of Columbus

Four bars challenged the validity of a municipal smoke-free law, claiming the law violated the state and federal constitutions. The law prohibited proprietors and employers from allowing smoking in public places and places of employment, specifically exempting smoking within private members-only clubs, and required proprietors and employers to publicize smoking regulations. The Court held that the ordinance did not conflict with state law, was not unconstitutionally vague, did not infringe upon the plaintiffs' due process rights, and did not violate equal protection of the law. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on behalf of the defendants.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Traditions Tavern, et al. v. Columbus, 171 Ohio App. 3d 383, Ohio-6655, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District (2006).

  • United States
  • Dec 14, 2006
  • Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District

Parties

Plaintiff

  • AD 1400, Inc., d.b.a. Key Club
  • Albert Dowden, Proprietor
  • Beverly Bowles, Proprietor
  • Dimo Kuzmanovski, Proprietor
  • Eugene Hawkins, Proprietor
  • Hazel & Sue, Inc., d.b.a. GJ's Lounge
  • SFKD, Inc., d.b.a. Traditions Tavern
  • Sunrise 967, Inc., d.b.a. Sunset Lounge

Defendant City of Columbus

Legislation Cited

City of Columbus Smoke-free Indoor Air Act of 2004, enacted as Columbus City Code 715

Ohio State Law R.C. 3791.031

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)
Liability
Measures dealing with criminal and civil liability, including compensation. (See FCTC Art. 19)

Substantive Issues

Right to Equal Protection
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Preemption
The subject matter of the case should be dealt with at a state level or national level.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by