City of Cleveland Heights v. Gulko

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Cleveland Heights v. Gulko

263 N.E.2d 410, 24 Ohio App. 2d 17, 53 Ohio Op. 2d 95, 1970 Ohio App. LEXIS 271

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided October 22, 1970·No. 29515·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, appellant herein, Irving Gulko, assigns four errors. His argument of weight is, in essence, that his conviction for Sunday sales rests under a statute creating arbitrary and unreasonable classifications in violation of the doctrine of equal protection. The statute in issue is R. C. 3773.24.

As an intermediate Court of Appeals, we have not the authority to initiate a fresh consideration of the constitutionality of the policy reflected in the statute. In our view, the federal constitutional question is foreclosed by McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U. S. 420, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393; Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc. (1961), 366 U. S. 617, 6 L. Ed. 2d 536; Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley (1961), 366 U. S. 582, 6 L. Ed. 2d 551; and Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), 366 U. S. 599, 6 L. Ed. 2d 563; although we find the dissents more persuasive.

We are similarly foreclosed from a new consideration of the Ohio constitutional question by State v. Kidd (1958), 167 Ohio St. 521; cf. State v. Footlick (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 206, 208. It may be, as the concurring opinion in Footlick *18 intimates, that a new look at the constitutionality of R. C. 3773.24 is timely in the light of its 1959 amendments. That is for the Supreme Court of Ohio. Nonetheless, there is precept for an intermediate court suggesting it (see Smith v. Flesher [1967], 12 Ohio St 2d 107, 109) and we do so.

Judgment affirmed.

Day, C. J., and Wasserman, J., concur. White, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant, appellant herein, Irving Gulko, assigns four errors. His argument of weight is, in essence, that his conviction for Sunday sales rests under a statute creating arbitrary and unreasonable classifications in violation of the doctrine of equal protection. The statute in issue is R. C. 3773.24.

As an intermediate Court of Appeals, we have not the authority to initiate a fresh consideration of the constitutionality of the policy reflected in the statute. In our view, the federal constitutional question is foreclosed by McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U. S. 420, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393; Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc. (1961), 366 U. S. 617, 6 L. Ed. 2d 536; Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley (1961), 366 U. S. 582, 6 L. Ed. 2d 551; and Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), 366 U. S. 599, 6 L. Ed. 2d 563; although we find the dissents more persuasive.

We are similarly foreclosed from a new consideration of the Ohio constitutional question by State v. Kidd (1958), 167 Ohio St. 521; cf. State v. Footlick (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 206, 208. It may be, as the concurring opinion in Footlick *18 intimates, that a new look at the constitutionality of R. C. 3773.24 is timely in the light of its 1959 amendments. That is for the Supreme Court of Ohio. Nonetheless, there is precept for an intermediate court suggesting it (see Smith v. Flesher [1967], 12 Ohio St 2d 107, 109) and we do so.

Judgment affirmed.

Day, C. J., and Wasserman, J., concur. White, J., not participating.

City of Cleveland Heights v. Gulko, 263 N.E.2d 410, 24 Ohio App. 2d 17, 53 Ohio Op. 2d 95, 1970 Ohio App. LEXIS 271 (Ohio Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

263 N.E.2d 410 (City of Cleveland Heights v. Gulko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related