Five cities challenged the residency statute as violating the home rule section of the Ohio Constitution. In City of Lima v. State of Ohio, unreported, 2007 WL 4248278 (3rd Dist. Ct. App. 12/3/07), the Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional because it violated the municipal home rule section of the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for review on May 7, 2008. In State of Ohio v. City of Akron, et al., 2008 WL 81506 (9th Dist. Ct. App. 1/9/08) both the City and its unions filed a motion for declaratory judgement regarding the residency requirement in Akron's charter. The Summit County Common Pleas Court ruled against the City, but the 9th District Ct. of Appeals ruled in its favor, finding that the statute violated the municipal home rule provision of the state constitution. The State appealed and oral arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court will be scheduled on the same day as those in the Lima case. In City of Dayton v. State of Ohio, unreported, 2008 WL 2222706 (2nd Dist. Ct. App. 5/30/08) the Court of Appeals found the statute to be constitutional. The Dayton case has been accepted for review by the Ohio Supreme Court but has been stayed pending outcome of the Lima and Akron cases. In both City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, unreported, 2008 WL 2252542 (8th Dist. Ct. App. June 2, 2008) and City of Toledo and City of Oregon v. State of Ohio, unreported 2008 WL 1837256 (6th Dist. Ct. App. April 25, 2008) the Courts of Appeals found the statute to be in violation of the home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution. Both cases have been accepted for review, but, like the Dayton case ,have been stayed pending the outcome of the other two cases. Of the five (5) cases challenging the statute, only one Court of Appeals has found the statute to be constitutional. Downes, Hurst & Fishel is filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the Ohio Public Employer Labor Relations Association in support of the cities' position in these cases.