City of East Liverpool v. Dawson

Ohio Supreme Court

City of East Liverpool v. Dawson

101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 527

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 22, 1920

DocketNo. 16474

StatusPublished

This text of 101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 527 (City of East Liverpool v. Dawson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of East Liverpool v. Dawson, 101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 527 (Ohio 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed, and the judgment of the court of common pleas of Columbiana county be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, for the reason that Ordinance No. 1664 of the-City of East Liverpool, declaring it unlawful to keep, store, or use intoxicating liquors in certain places, is a valid exercise of municipal power under the grant of Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and not in conflict with Section 9, Article XV, of said Constitution.

Judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and that of common pleas affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Johnson, Wanamaker, Robinson and Merrell, JJ., concur. Matthias, J., not participating.

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

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed, and the judgment of the court of common pleas of Columbiana county be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, for the reason that Ordinance No. 1664 of the-City of East Liverpool, declaring it unlawful to keep, store, or use intoxicating liquors in certain places, is a valid exercise of municipal power under the grant of Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and not in conflict with Section 9, Article XV, of said Constitution.

Judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and that of common pleas affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Johnson, Wanamaker, Robinson and Merrell, JJ., concur. Matthias, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-east-liverpool-v-dawson-ohio-1920.