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

The city has filed a lawsuit to stop the NFL team from leaving Cleveland's lakefront when its stadium lease expires after the 2028 season.

The Cleveland Browns certainly have their fair share of questions this offseason, but none are bigger than the quarterback position and what they will do. They could go the veteran route and acquire someone like Kirk Cousins or Sam Darnold,

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 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.

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.

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

The Browns shall not pass. The city of Cleveland filed a lawsuit Tuesday to try to prevent the NFL team’s move from their Lake Erie-front Huntington Bank Stadium to what would be a dome facility in suburban Brook Park — 15 miles south of the city in the same county, according to ESPN.

The city of Cleveland has filed a lawsuit against the Browns over the team's proposed move to a new stadium in the Brook Park suburb. In the lawsuit filed