U.S. Supreme Court STATE OF OHIO EX REL BRYANT v. AKRON METROPOLITAN PARK DIST FOR, 281 U.S. 74 (1930)

281 U.S. 74

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. BRYANT v. AKRON METROPOLITAN PARK DIST. FOR SUMMIT COUNTY et al.

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. WADSWORTH v. ZANGERLE, Auditor of Cuyahoga County et al.

Nos. 237, 238. Argued Feb. 27, 28, 1930. Decided March 12, 1930.[ State of Ohio ex rel Bryant v. Akron

[Page 281 U.S. 74, 81]

sion could be had. But it is said that, from the standpoint of the state Constitution, the statute may operate unequally. It is unnecessary to comment on this point so far as the mere inconvenience which may be caused by possible conflicts is concerned. It is urged that the situation has been described as deplorable by the Supreme Court of the state (Board of Education v. Columbus, 118 Ohio St. 295, 160 N. E. 902) but it is not for this Court to intervene to protect the citizens of the state from the consequences of its policy, if the state has not disregarded the requirements of the Federal Constitution. In the present instance, there has been as yet no conflict of decision. The provision of the state Constitution which is attacked is one operating uniformly throughout the entire state. The state has a wide discretion in respect to establishing its systems of courts and distributing their jurisdiction. It has been held by this Court that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated by diversity in the jurisdiction of the several courts of a state as to subject-matter or finality of decision if all persons within the territorial limits of the respective jurisdictions of the state courts have an equal right in like cases under like circumstances to resort to them for redress. A state 'may establish one system of courts for cities and another for rural districts, one system for one portion of its territory and another system for another portion.' Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22, 30, 31 S.. Different courts of appeal may be set up for different portions of the state. Id., page 33, of 101 U. S.. It is thus well established that there is no requirement of the Federal Constitution that the state shall adopt a unifying method of appeals which will insure to all litigants within the state the same decisions on particular questions which may arise. Missouri v. Lewis, supra; Pittsburgh, etc., Railway Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421, 427, 14 S. Ct. 1114; Mallett v. North Carolina, , 597-599, 21 S. Ct. 730

Judgments affirmed.