City of Lima v. Ward

226 N.E.2d 737, 10 Ohio St. 2d 137, 39 Ohio Op. 2d 123, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 384
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 19, 1967·No. No. 40628·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Lima ordinance No. 969.07 provides in its entirety that “it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and willfully resist, obstruct, threaten, menace or abuse any officer in the execution of his office.”

The affidavit, drawn in the words of the ordinance, is not void for indefiniteness. The question of the sufficiency of the affidavit should have been raised by motion to quash before issue joined. Cincinnati v. Schill, 125 Ohio St. 57.

The motion to certify the record is allowed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Taut, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

City of Lima v. Ward, 226 N.E.2d 737, 10 Ohio St. 2d 137, 39 Ohio Op. 2d 123, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 384 (Ohio 1967).

226 N.E.2d 737 (City of Lima v. Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Cleveland v. Washington Mutual Bank
2010 Ohio 2219 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
State v. Reyna
493 N.E.2d 555 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1985)