[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Preterm-Cleveland, Inc. v. Kasich, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-441.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-441 PRETERM-CLEVELAND, INC., APPELLEE, v. KASICH, GOVERNOR, ET AL., APPELLANTS; O’MALLEY, PROS. ATTY., APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Preterm-Cleveland, Inc. v. Kasich, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-441.] Standing—Challenge to constitutionality of certain provisions of 2013 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 59, a biennial budget bill—Party challenging multiple provisions in an enactment of the General Assembly as violating the Single Subject Clause, Article II, Section 15(D), Ohio Constitution, must prove standing as to each provision party seeks to have severed from the enactment by demonstrating it suffered or is threatened with direct and concrete injury in manner or degree different from that suffered by general public because of each provision—Party lacks standing to challenge legislative enactment as violating the Single Subject Clause, Article II, Section 15(D), Ohio Constitution, if challenged provision applies to other persons but does not cause or threaten direct and concrete injury to party asserting challenge. *Reporter’s Note: This cause was decided on January 24, 2018, but was released to the public on February 6, 2018, subsequent to the resignation of Justice William M. O’Neill, who participated in the decision. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO (No. 2016-1252—Submitted September 26, 2017—Decided January 24, 2018.*) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 103103, 2016-Ohio-4859. _______________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 1. Because Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., has not proven it suffered or is threatened with direct and concrete injury from the passage of the 2013 state budget bill, it lacks standing to challenge the bill as violating the Single Subject Clause of Article II, Section 15(D) of the Ohio Constitution, and therefore, Governor John R. Kasich and the other state defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2. A party challenging multiple provisions in an enactment of the General Assembly as violating the Single Subject Clause of the Ohio Constitution must prove standing as to each provision the party seeks to have severed from the enactment by demonstrating it suffered or is threatened with direct and concrete injury in a manner or degree different from that suffered by the general public because of each provision. 3. A party lacks standing to challenge a legislative enactment as violating the Single Subject Clause of the Ohio Constitution if the challenged provision applies to other persons but does not cause or threaten direct and concrete injury to the party asserting the challenge. _______________ O’DONNELL, J. {¶ 1} The challenges originally asserted ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals