It’s safe to assume that when then-Ohio Gov. George Voinovich signed the so-called “Art Modell Law” in 1996, the possibility of the law being used against the Cleveland Browns wasn’t on anyone’s mind.

A toothless, untested, unenforceable piece of legislation that has no bearing on the team’s attempt to build a domed stadium in Brook Park after Huntington Bank Field’s (HBF) lease expires in 2028 (the Browns’ stance), or ...

Browns defensive end Myles Garrett was honored on Monday by the PFWA when he was voted to the All-NFL and All-AFC teams for the 2024 season.

The Cleveland Browns legal challenge in federal court over its proposed move from downtown to Brook Park should be tossed out, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office and City of Cleveland argued on Wednesday.

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 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 Browns don't just have questions about their offense going into the offseason. They also have questions on defense, such as these three.

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.

While eight lucky teams continue to duke it out on a path towards the Super Bowl, the Cleveland Browns are diving head first into a critical offseason, with ple

Cleveland officials on Tuesday sued the Cleveland Browns over the team's plans to move the downtown stadium to Brook Park.