Foltz Grocery & Baking Co. v. Brown

Ohio Supreme Court

Foltz Grocery & Baking Co. v. Brown

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 724

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1924

DocketNo. 18689

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 724 (Foltz Grocery & Baking Co. v. Brown) 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

Foltz Grocery & Baking Co. v. Brown, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 724 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

See also Court of Appeals opinion, this week’s Abstract.

Before the Supreme Court of Ohio on a motion to certify. An action was brought by the Grocery Co. to enjoin the Secretary of State from enforcing the provisions of 6292 GC. as amended in 110-OL. 222, insofar as they affect heavy trucks. The amended section provided for certain taxes or license fees for the operation of motor vehicles, a certain amount per horse power and also an additional amount per hundred pounds gross weight.

The Company contends that the amendment was unconstitutional because it discriminated in its classification against certain kinds of commercial traffic and therefore was in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution and in violation of Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Ohio Constitution. The Court of Appeals sustained the constitutionality of the Amendment, whereupon plaintiff prosecuted error. The principal questions for the consideration of the Supreme Court are:

1. Is the classification provided within the Amendment a reasonable classification?

2. Is the classification in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions?

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

See also Court of Appeals opinion, this week’s Abstract.

Before the Supreme Court of Ohio on a motion to certify. An action was brought by the Grocery Co. to enjoin the Secretary of State from enforcing the provisions of 6292 GC. as amended in 110-OL. 222, insofar as they affect heavy trucks. The amended section provided for certain taxes or license fees for the operation of motor vehicles, a certain amount per horse power and also an additional amount per hundred pounds gross weight.

The Company contends that the amendment was unconstitutional because it discriminated in its classification against certain kinds of commercial traffic and therefore was in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution and in violation of Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Ohio Constitution. The Court of Appeals sustained the constitutionality of the Amendment, whereupon plaintiff prosecuted error. The principal questions for the consideration of the Supreme Court are:

1. Is the classification provided within the Amendment a reasonable classification?

2. Is the classification in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foltz-grocery-baking-co-v-brown-ohio-1924.