To Case Western Reserve University law professor Eric Chaffee, there’s one big takeaway from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s decision to enter the battle between the Cleveland Browns and the City of Cleveland. “It means the state is willing to take a side here — and it does want the Browns to remain in Cleveland,” Chaffee said.

Cleveland’s fight to keep the Browns from moving from downtown and into a proposed dome in the suburbs has taken yet another legal turn.

The City of Cleveland has filed a case against the Cleveland Browns ownership after proposed departure from Huntington Bank Field.

In August, the Browns announced their intentions to move to Brook Park, which is about 13 miles southwest of the current stadium, because it was “their most compelling option.” The team described it as a $2.4 billion project, which was later revealed to include a domed stadium.

The city has sued the team over the proposed move out of Cleveland to a domed stadium in Brook Park. The lawsuit arises under the Modell Law, which was enacted after the late Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore in 1996.

The City of Cleveland returned fire Tuesday in its battle with the Haslam Sports Group. The city filed a lawsuit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas asking for one of two things: that the team be offered for purchase by local buyers to prevent the move to Brook Park or that the company negotiate its exit from the city.