Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
McQuillin Law of Municipal Corp
Page 2 of 9 Page 1 MUNICORP § 9.O3 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 9.03 (3rd ed.) McQuillin The Law of Municipal Corporations Database updated August 2002 Chapter 9. the Municipal Charter I. General Consideration Table of Contents § 9.03. NATURE, PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF CHARTER. Unless additional powers are conferred by statute or by the state constitution, [FN1] a municipal corporation created by charter derives all its powers from the charter under which it acts as a body corporate and politic. [FN2] Charters have been called bills of right, [FN3] a name originating in the medieval period when they were obtained from the feudal lords and barons by diplomacy, purchase or other means. [FN4] And municipal charters are sometimes mentioned as constitutions, that is, fundamental or organic laws of municipal corporations. [FN5] The city is a miniature state, the council is its legislature, the charter is its constitution. [FN6] In other words, the city charter represents the supreme law of the city, subject only to conflicting provisions in the state and federal constitutions, or to preemptive state or federal law. [FN7] The charter supersedes all municipal laws, ordinances, roles or regulations that are inconsistent with its provisions. [FNS] A constitution being established by the people becomes the organic law of the state; so a municipal charter fi'amed and adopted by local electors as authorized under certain of the state constitutions, providing for home role charters, becomes the organic law [FN9] of the people promulgating it in all matters pertaining to the local civil government of the municipality, [FN 10] but legislative charters, being but grants of power or recognitions of rights, should not, strictly speaking, be termed constitutions or organic laws. [FNll] And, except as to certain constitutional charters in some of the states, [FN12] municipal charters ordinarily are construed as constituting a grant, and not a limitation of power. [FNI3] On the other hand, charters are generally construed to restrict the powers contained in them to the subjects enumerated with such implications of powers as fairly and reasonably arise from those subjects, within the recognized principles of judicial interpretation. [FN 14] Unlike the charter of a private corporation, [FN15] a municipal charter is not considered a contract with the state, [FN16] and therefore does not need to be accepted in order to make it effective, unless required by constitutional or statutory provisions. [FN17] The roles relating to the expiration of charters of private corporations are inapplicable to the charters of municipal corporations. [FNIS] Indeed, if there is no provision for termination in the charter of a municipal corporation, the charter is not terminated by a failure to exercise the charter powers. [FN19] Generally speaking, the municipal charter creates the body politic and corporate, contains the municipal powers and gives the form of municipal organization, locates the corporate boundaries and wards or other subdivisions, classifies and distributes the powers and duties of the various departments, boards and officers, and provides the manner in which the several powers shall be exercised. [FN20] As all of these matters should be definitely established, it follows that a municipal corporation cannot have at one and the same time two coexisting charters. [FN21] It is usual to give the name of the corporation in the charter, but omission in this respect will not invalidate it. [FN22] The charter sometimes prescribes the qualification of voters and specifies the time and mode of electing municipal officers, and, sometimes provides punishment by removal or suspension of officers who become derelict in their duties. However, these matters are often provided in the constitution or general statutes of the state. [FN23] Modem city charters usually include provisions for direct action by the electors, as legislation by the initiative and referendum and the recall of officers, which provisions have been sustained by the courts as constitutionally valid against the contention that they constitute a departure from a republican form of government required by organic Copt. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B00558_00000004600002115237... 3/10/2003 Page 3 of 9 MUNICORP § 9.03 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 9.03 (3rd ed.) Page 2 laws. [FN24] The precise limits of power that may be conferred by charter are impossible of definition. They will be sustained insofar as they relate to matters of local self-government and administration, [FN25] but they are ineffective ordinarily so far as they relate to matters of state concern. [FN26] In deciding whether a matter is a municipal affair or of statewide concern, the legislature's declared intent to preempt all local law is important but not determinative. [FN26.10] But a home rule city looks to the legislature only to ascertain whether that body has limited the city's constitutional power. [FN27] Special legislative charters necessarily vary in the powers conferred and in the rights recognized in them. So charters adopted by virtue of constitutional provisions will be unlike in many respects, and this is clearly within the contemplation of the constitution authorizing them. [FN28] Municipal charters present the widest variation both in form and substance and preclude practical classification. Some charters deal mainly with the fundamentals of structure and function leaving the details to ordinances. Others specify more or less completely the municipal organization and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the officers, subordinates and agents. The general statute under which a city or village is incorporated constitutes its charter. [FN29] Under the general incorporation laws of most of the states there is uniformity in the rights and powers among separate classes and grades, and where classification is mandatory all municipal corporations of the same class or grade possess the same rights and powers and are subject to the same restrictions. [FN30] [FN1]. California. McGuire v. Wentworth, 120 Cal App 340, 7 P2d 729. Connecticut. Thomson v. New Haven, 100 Corm 604, 124 A 247. Illinois. A municipality may derive its powers with reference to certain subjects from various statutes, or fi.om different sections of the same statute. Consumers' Coal Co. v. Chicago, 313 Ill 408, 145 NE 114; Chicago v. Green Mill Gardens, 305 Ill 87, 137 NE 126. Missouri. Cape Motor Lodge, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau, 706 SW2d 208 (Mo) (all powers legislature could grant). New Jersey. De Potter v. Patten, 10 NJ Misc 425, 159 A 397. Ohio. Municipal power is derived fi.om the state constitution, not from a charter, and hence a city has home rule powers whether or not it has adopted a charter. State ex rel. City of Bedford v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, 62 Ohio St 3d 17, 577 NE2d 645 (1991). Oregon. Portland Baseball Club v. Portland, 142 Or 13, 18 P2d 811 (authority of municipal council as not restricted by charter but including powers conferred by general statute applicable to all incorporated cities). Texas. Huffy. Wichita Falls, 121 Tex 281, 48 SW2d 580. [FN2]. Alaska. Lien v. Ketchikan, 383 P2d 721 (Alaska). California. Woo v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 967, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 156 (2d Dist. 2000). Domar Elec., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 9 Cai 4th 161, 36 Cai Rptr 2d 521,885 P2d 934 (1994). Connecticut. Fennel v. City of Hartford, 238 Conn 809, 681 A2d 934 (1996). For an expanded analysis of this case, see McQuillin Mun Law Rpt, 1996 -- No. 12; Windham Taxpayers v. Windham, 234 Coun 513, 662 A2d 1281 (1995). Florida. Clark v. North Bay Village, 54 So 2d 240 (Fla); Abell v. Town of Boynton, 95 Fla 984, 117 So 507 (charter as defining powers and duties); Gontz v. Cooper City, 228 So 2d 913 (Fla App) (paramount law of municipal corporation as its charter giving municipality all powers it possesses unless other statutes applicable to it). Louisiana. City of Shreveport v. Chanse Gas Corp., 794 So. 2d 962 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001), writ denied, 805 So. 2d 209 (La. 2002) and writ denied, 805 So. 2d 209 (La. 2002). Maryland. Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 185 Md 266, 44 A2d 745. Michigan. Gallup v. Saginaw, 170 Mich 195, 135 NW 1060; Jackson Common Council v. Harrington, 160 Mich 550, 125 NW 383 (charter defining rights and obligations otherwise not legally granted or imposed); Vander Toom v. City of Grand Rapids, 132 Mich App 590, 348 NW2d 697, citing this treatise. Missouri. Washington v. Mueller, 220 Mo App 564, 287 SW 856 (charter as measure of power expressed and Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works http://print.west~aw.c~m/de~ivery.htm~?dest=atp&dataid=B~~558~~~~~~~46~~~~2~~5237... 3/10/2003 Page 4 of 9 MUNICORP § 9.03 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 9.03 (3rd ed.) Page 3 implied). Oregon. Harder v. Springfield, 192 Or 676, 236 P2d 432. Wisconsin. Wisconsin Ass'n of Master Bakers v. Milwaukee, 191 Wis 302, 210 NW 707 (charter as measure of power expressed and implied). [FN3]. New York. People v. Morris, 13 Wend 325,334. [FN4]. "Some six centuries since, the early founders of English liberty called the instrument which secured their rights a charter. It was, indeed, a concession; they had obtained it, sword in hand, from the king; and in many cases whatever was obtained favorable to human rights from the tyranny and despotism of the feudal sovereigns was called by the names of privileges and liberties as being matter of special favor." From speech of Webster on the Greek Revolution in the House of Representatives, January 19, 1824. [FN5]. United States. St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 149 US 465, 467, 468, 37 L Ed 810, 13 S Ct 990; Soules v. Kauaians for Nukolii Campaign Committee, 623 F Supp 657 (D Hawaii). Arizona. Schultz v. Phoenix, 18 Ariz 35, 156 P 75 ("organic law of city"). California. Woo v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 967, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 156 (2d Dist. 2000). Platt v. San Francisco, 158 Cal 74, 110 P 304; Creighton v. City of Santa Mnnica, 160 Cal App 3d 1011, 207 Cal Rptr 78; Porter v. Riverside, 261 Cai App 2d 832, 68 Cai Rptr 313; Oakland v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 259 Cal App 2d 163, 66 Cal Rptr 283. Connecticut. City of Norwich v. Housing Authority of Town of Norwich, 216 Corm 112, 579 A2d 50 (1990) (organic law of the municipality). Florida. Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., 261 So 2d 801 (Fla) (paramount law); Clark v. North Bay Village, 54 So 2d 240 (Fla); Luers v. Kuykendall, 135 Fla 644, 185 So 448; Gontz v. Cooper City, 228 So 2d 913 (Fla App). Georgia. Johnson v. Arnold, 176 Ga 910, 169 SE 505, citing McQuillin; Lewis v. McWhorter, 176 Ga 914, 169 SE 507 (charter bearing same general relations to its ordinances that state constitution bears to its statutes). Illinois. People v. Mount, 186 Ill 560, 58 NE 360. Maryland. A charter distributes power among the agencies of government, and between the government and the people who have delegated that power to their government. Board of Sup'rs of Elections of Anne Arundel County v. Smallwood, 327 Md 220, 608 A2d 1222 (1992). Michigan. Sykes v. Battle Creek, 288 Mich 660, 286 NW 117; Banish v. Hamtramck, 9 Mich App 381, 157 NW2d 445. Missouri. State v. Stemmler, 479 SW2d 456 (Mo); Mullins v. Kansas City, 268 Mo 444, 188 SW 193; St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo 466, 478, 41 SW 1094, 46 SW 976; Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo 458, 41 SW 943; St. Louis v. Foster, 52 Mo 513; Forty v. Ridge, 56 Mo App 615. Ohio. Singleton v. City of Hamilton, 33 Ohio App 3d 187, 515 NE2d 8 (1986); Northern Ohio Patrolmen's Benev. Ass'n v. City of North Olmsted, 16 Ohio App 3d 464, 476 NE2d 689 (charter as city's organic law goveming city's exercise of home rule powers). Oklahoma. Ponca City v. Edwards, 460 P2d 418 (Okla); Lee v. Norick, 447 P2d 1015 (Okla); Scarden v. Guthrie, 145 Okla 187,292 P 40; Oklahoma Journal Pub. Co. v. Oklahoma City, 620 P2d 452 (Okla App). Tennessee. Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Rapid Transit Co., 138 Tenn 594, 198 SW 890; East Tennessee University v. Knoxville, 6 Baxt 166, 170. Texas. Williams v. Davidson, 43 Tex 1 (constitution for local self- government). Wisconsin. Save Our Fire Dept. Paramedics Committee v. City of Appleton, 131 Wis 2d 366, 389 NW2d 43, citing this treatise. [FN6]. United States. Paulsen v. Portland, 149 US 30, 38, 37 L Ed 637, 13 S Ct 750. California. Woo v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 967, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 156 (2d Dist. 2000). Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works http://print.west~aw.c~m/de~ivery.htm~?dest=atp&dataid=B~~558~~~~~~~46~~~~2~~5237... 3/10/2003 Page 5 of 9 MUNICORP § 9.03 Page 4 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 9.03 (3rd ed.) Harman v. San Francisco, 7 Cal 3d 150, 101 Cai Rptr 880, 496 P2d 1248 (charter as subject to conflicting provisions federal and state Constitutions and to preemptive state law). Mississippi. Hawkins v. West Point, 200 Miss 616, 27 So 2d 549 (special charter of city of West Point of 1892 purporting to furnish complete plan for government city). [FN7]. California. DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cai 4th 763, 38 Cai Rptr 2d 699, 889 P2d 1019 (1995). Domar Elec., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 9 Cal 4th 161, 36 Cai Rptr 2d 521, 885 P2d 934 (1994); Service Employees International Union Local 390/400 v. Board of Sup'rs of City & County of San Francisco, 180 Cal App 3d 1179, 226 Cai Rptr 52. Louisiana. City of Shreveport v. Chanse Gas Corp., 794 So. 2d 962 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001), writ denied, 805 So. 2d 209 (La. 2002) and writ denied, 805 So. 2d 209 (La. 2002). Lafourche Parish Council v. Autin, 648 So 2d 343 (La 1994). Missouri. City of Springfield v. Goff, 918 SW2d 786 (Mo 1996). [FN8]. California. DeVita v. County ofNapa, 9 Cai 4th 763, 38 Cai Rptr 2d 699, 889 P2d 1019 (1995). · Service Employees International Union Local 390/400 v. Board of Sup'rs of City & County of San Francisco, 180 Cal App 3d 1179, 226 Cal Rptr 52. Connecticut. A pension manual cannot confer any additional benefits not provided for by the city's charter. Fennel v. City of Hartford, 238 Corm 809, 681 A2d 934 (1996). For an expanded analysis of this case, see McQuillin Mun Law Rpt, 1996 -- No. 12. Louisiana. Lafourche Parish Council v. Autin, 648 So 2d 343 (La 1994). [FN9]. California. Woo v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 967, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 156 (2d Dist. 2000). C.J. Kubach Co. v. McGuire, 199 Ca1215, 248 P 676. Connecticut. Windham Taxpayers v. Windham, 234 Conn 513,662 A2d 1281 (1995). City of Norwich v. Housing Authority of Town of Norwich, 216 Conn 112, 579 A2d 50 (1990) (organic law of the municipality). Michigan. Joy Management Co. v. City of Detroit, 176 Mich App 722, 440 NW2d 654 (1989). Oklahoma. Oliver v. Pickett, 79 Okla 315, 193 P 526; State v. Linn, 49 Okla 526, 153 P 826; Brady v. Hubbard, 79 Okla 210, 192 P 567; Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla 22, 223 P 640. Texas. When the people adopt a home rule charter, that instnmaent becomes the fundamental law of the municipality in the same manner that the constitution is the fundamental law of the state; the only limitation upon these powers of the home rule city is that the charter may not be in conflict with general laws of the state or in contravention of the constitution. Sierra Club v. Austin Independent School Dist., 489 SW2d 325 (Tex Civ App). See § 9.08. [FN10]. Arizona. Tucson v. Tucson Sunshine Climate Club, 64 Ariz 1,164 P2d 598. California. Santa Rosa v. Bower, 142 Cal 299, 75 P 829 (majority vote in adopting); Creighton v. City of Santa Monica, 160 Cal App 3d 1011, 207 Cal Rptr 78; Shean v. Edmonds, 89 Cal App 2d 315, 200 P2d 879 (charter as fundamental law of area for which it was adopted); Adams v. Wolff, 84 Cal App 2d 435, 190 P2d 665 (San Francisco home-rule charter as comparable to constitution of state and governed by same rules); Marculescu v. City Planning Commission of City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cai App 2d 371, 46 P2d 308. Colorado. City of Colorado Springs v. Securcare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2000) (zoning). Missouri. State v. St. Louis, 318 Mo 870, 2 SW2d 713. Ohio. State v. Toledo, 142 Ohio St 123, 50 NE2d 338. Oklahoma. Foster v. Young, 149 Okla 19, 299 P 162. Oregon. Harder v. Springfield, 192 Or 676, 236 P2d 432; Blaser v. Dallas City, 171 Or 441, 137 P2d 991; Safeway Stores v. Portland, 149 Or 581, 42 P2d 162; Joplin v. Ten Brook, 124 Or 36, 263 P 893, 894. Washington. Young v. Seattle, 30 Wash 2d 357, 191 P2d 273 (constitutional charter as organic law of city and Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=_atp&dataid=B005 5 80000000460000211523 7... 3/10/2003 Page 6 of 9 MUNICORP § 9.03 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 9.03 (3rd ed.) Page 5 as law of state). [FNI 1]. Connecticut. Food, Beverage & Express Drivers Local Union v. Shelton, 147 Coun 401, 161 A2d 587 (charter as enabling act). Maine. A city charter that is an act of the legislature, must give way to the constitution. Accordingly, where a city such as Portland, Maine, has adopted the initiative and referendum under the constitution, then only under the constitution may a "city ordinance" be changed either by city council on ratification by the voters, or by the legislature by uniform legislation. La Fleur v. Frost, 146 Me 270, 80 A2d 407. Missouri. It has been said that a charter is the organic law whether it emanates from the state legislature or is framed and adopted by the people of the city. Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo 458, 41 SW 943. [FN12]. See § 9.08, § 10.13. [FN13]. California. Domar Elec., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 9 Cal 4th 161, 36 Cai Rptr 2d 521,885 P2d 934 (1994). Ruane v. San Diego, 267 Cal App 2d 548, 73 Cal Rptr 316. Where a charter is silent a city may exercise powers conferred upon it by general law provided such general powers are not inconsistent with those granted by the charter. Hubbard v. San Diego, 55 Cal App 3d 380, 127 Cai Rptr 587. Florida. Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., 261 So 2d 801 (Fla); Utley v. St. Petersburg, 106 Fla 692, 144 So 53, citing this treatise. Louisiana. City of Shreveport v. Chanse Gas Corp., 794 So. 2d 962 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001), writ denied, 805 So. 2d 209 (La. 2002) and writ denied, 805 So. 2d 209 (La. 2002). Nebraska. Philson v. Omaha, 167 Neb 360, 93 NW2d 13; Consumers' Coal Co. v. Lincoln, 109 Neb 51, 189 NW 643 (home rule charter grant of power). Oklahoma. Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla 22, 223 P 640. Oregon. Grayson v. State, 249 Or 92, 436 P2d 261; Harder v. Springfield, 192 Or 676, 236 P2d 432; Fisher v. Astoria, 126 Or 268, 269 P 853, citing this treatise; La Grande v. Municipal Court of City of La Grande, 120 Or 109, 251 P 308 (municipality not to enact charter or legislation of any kind merely because it is not expressly forbidden); State v. Funk, 105 Or 134, 199 P 592, 209 P 113. Texas. Lower Colorado River Authority v. San Marcos, 523 SW2d 641 (Tex). Wisconsin. See State v. Milwaukee, 190 Wis 633,209 NW 860. Construction of charters, see § 9.22; of municipal powers, generally, see § 10.18 et seq.. [FN14]. United States. A county charter that allocated governmental power to set special elections to the county council but did not proscribe any conduct or exact obedience under the threat of sanctions was a constitutional provision and therefore improper delegation of the legislative authority doctrine and the void for vagueness doctrine were inapplicable. Soules v. Kauaians for Nukolii Campaign Committee, 623 F Supp 657 (D Hawaii). Alabama. Mitchell v. Birmingham, 222 Ala 389, 133 So 13 (charter power to forbid business that may be prohibited under police power as becoming part of system of state law). Nebraska. Standard Oil Co. v. Lincoln, 114 Neb 243, 208 NW 962, affd 275 US 504, 72 L Ed 395, 48 S Ct 155; Consumers' Coal Co. v. Lincoln, 109 Neb 51,189 NW 643, quoting this treatise. [FN15]. United States. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat 518,624, 712, 4 L Ed 629. [FNI6]. See § 4.05. Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works http.//print.westlaw.com/delivery.htmlVdest=atp&dataid=B0055800000004600002115237... 3/10/2003 Page 7 of 9 MUNICORP 8 9.03 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. 8 9.03 (3rd ed.) [FN17]. Georgia. Brunswick v. Finney, 54 Ga 317. Illinois. People v. Wren, 5 I11269. Iowa. Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa 82. Kentucky. Smith v. Crutcher, 92 Ky 586, 13 Ky L Rep 817, 18 SW 521. Missouri. State v. Leffingwell, 54 Mo 458; St. Louis v. Russell, 9 Mo 507. New York. New York Fire Department v. Kip, 10 Wend 266. Texas. Buford v. State, 72 Tex 182, 10 SW 401. Page 6 [FN18]. Georgia. Wall v. Mayor & Aldermen of City of Milledgeville, 197 Ga 165, 28 SE2d 131 (act granting charter containing no provision for expiration). [FN19]. Georgia. Brown v. Marietta, 220 Ga 826, 142 SE2d 235. See Mountain View v. Clayton County, 242 Ga 163, 249 SE2d 541 (local act repealing city charter for failure to function as city). [FN20]. Alabama. Butler v. Walker, 98 Ala 358, 13 So 261; Moore, 62 Ala 471. Connecticut. Fennel v. City of Hartford, 238 Conn 809, 681 A2d 934 (1996). For an expanded analysis of this case, see McQuillin Mun Law Rpt, 1996 -- No. 12. The charter serves as an enabling act, both creating power and prescribing the form in which itmust be exercised. City of Norwich v. Housing Authority of Town of Norwich, 216 Corm 112, 579 A2d 50 (1990). Maine. Ellsworth v. Municipal Officers of City of Portland, 142 Me 200, 49 A2d 169 (municipal charter as intended to provide new and comprehensive system for government of city). Maryland. Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md 595,415 A2d 255, quoting this treatise. Michigan. Streat v. Vermilya, 268 Mich 1,255 NW 604, 606. The powers of a local government board or commission are limited to those provided by the city charter or local ordinance. Vander Toom v. City of Grand Rapids, 132 Mich App 590, 348 NW2d 697, citing this treatise. Missouri. Hannibal v. Winchester, 391 SW2d 279 (Mo) (no legal adoption of valid charter without defming in some manner city's existing corporate limits). [FN21]. Florida. See State v. Armstrong, 103 Fla 121,137 So 140. Michigan. Streat v. Vermilya, 268 Mich 1,255 NW 604. [FN22]. Pennsylvania. Borough of Jefferson, 163 Pa Super 568, 63 A2d 100 (name to be given new corporation as within discretion of court). See 8 5.01. [FN23]. See ch 12. [FN24]. Maine. La Fleur v. Frost, 146 Me 270, 80 A2d 407. Ohio. Home rule city had power to call advisory referendum even though there was no specific authority to do so. State ex tel. City of Bedford v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, 62 Ohio St 3d 17, 577 NE2d 645 (1991). Initiative and referendum, see 88 16.48-16.70; recall, see 8 12.251. [FN25]. California. Domar Elec., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 9 Cal 4th 161, 36 Cal Rptr 2d 521, 885 P2d 934 Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B0055800000004600002115237... 3/10/2003 Page 8 of 9 MU-NICORP § 9.03 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 9.03 (3rd ed.) Page 7 (1994). A charter city is constitutionally entitled to exercise exclusive authority over all matters deemed to be municipal affairs. DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal 4th 763, 38 Cai Rptr 2d 699, 889 P2d 1019 (1995). Stem v. Berkeley, 25 Cal App 685, 145 P 167 (school director's compensation as properly provided for by charter). Charter city has full control over its municipal affairs and in respect to them is not subject to the general law except as the city charter may provide because the municipal affairs doctrine does not foreclose state legislation with respect to municipal affairs of a home role city. Downey v. Board of Adm'rs, Public Employees' Retirement System, 47 Cai App 3d 621, 121 Cal Rptr 295. Colorado. City of Colorado Springs v. Securcare Self Storage, Inc., l0 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). Kentucky. Bryan v. Voss, 143 Ky 422, 136 SW 884 (legislative and executive functions as vested in municipal officers). Maine. The limitation is that the initiative and referendum must not be established in matters that are not municipal affairs. La Fleur v. Frost, 146 Me 270, 80 A2d 407. Ohio. State v. Toledo, 142 Ohio St 123, 50 NE2d 338 (municipality adopting charter as having no greater or different power than other municipalities); Mulcahy v. Akron, 27 Ohio App 442, 161 NE 542. Oklahoma. State v. Linn, 49 Okla 526, 153 P 826 (charter as superseding state laws relating to municipal matters but not those relating to general state matters); Ruth v. Merrill, 43 Okla 764, 144 P 371. Pennsylvania. City Council of City of Bethlehem v. Marcincin, 512 Pa 1, 515 A2d 1320 (ordinance limiting term of mayors office for two years valid). Rhode Island. Marro v. General Treasurer of City of Cranston, 108 RI 192, 273 A2d 660. Texas. Bonnet v. Belstering, 137 SW 1154 (Tex Civ App), affd 104 Tex 432, 138 SW 571 (educational system provisions). State and municipal affairs distinguished, see § 4.85. [FN26]. California. DeVita v. County ofNapa, 9 Cal 4th 763, 38 Cal Rptr 2d 699, 889 P2d 1019 (1995). Idaho. State v. Frederic, 28 Idaho 709, 155 P 977 (legislature to give municipal corporations power to prohibit and punish indictable offenses under state constitution). Minnesota. Gallagher v. City of Minneapolis, 364 NW2d 467 (Minn App) (state collective bargaining law as not limited or restricted by municipal charter). Missouri. State v. St. Louis, 318 Mo 870, 2 SW2d 713 (state as not surrendering power over matters of general state concern). Rhode Island. Marro v. General Treasurer of City of Cranston, 108 RI 192, 273 A2d 660. Texas. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Price, 94 SW2d 884 (Tex Civ App) (charter conflicting with constitution or general statute as void to extent of conflict). State and municipal affairs distinguished, see § 4.85 et seq.. Legislative control over municipal affairs in home mle municipalities, see § 4.83. [FN26.10]. California. DeVita v. County ofNapa, 9 Cal 4th 763, 38 Cal Rptr 2d 699, 889 P2d 1019 (1995). [FN27]. Texas. Garza v. Garcia, 785 SW2d 421 (Tex App 1990). [FN28]. California. Roseville v. Tulley, 55 Cal App 2d 601, 131 P2d 395. Georgia. Harris v. McMillan, 186 Ga 529, 198 SE 250 (no constitutional requirement of uniformity in charters of municipalities). Missouri. Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo 458, 41 SW 943; State v. Field, 99 Mo 352, 12 SW 802. Wisconsin. State v. Thompson, 149 Wis 488, 517, 137 NW 20 (upon original adoption or subsequent amendment of constitutional charter). Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B0055800000004600002115237... 3/10/2003 Page 9 of 9 MUNICORP § 9.03 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 9.03 (3rd ed.) [FN29]. Alabama. Trailway Oil Co. v. Mobile, 271 Ala 218, 122 So 2d 757. California. Styring v. Santa Ana, 64 Cal App 2d 12, 147 P2d 689, 691. [FN30]. Ohio. Fitzgerald v. Cleveland, 88 Ohio St 338, 343,103 NE 512, quoting this treatise. See § 4.23, § 4.24. Page 8 Copyright (c) by West Group MUNICORP § 9.03 END OF DOCUMENT Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B0055800000004600002115237... 3/10/2003