Gabriel Building Co. v. State Ex Rel. Birrell

186 N.E. 5, 125 Ohio St. 642, 125 Ohio St. (N.S.) 642, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 240
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1932·No. 23590·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The sole question for determination in this case is whether Section 13195-1, General Code, known as the “Padlock Act,” is constitutional. The Ohio statute above referred to is so nearly identical with the national prohibition law on the same subject that we are constrained to follow the decisions of the United States Supreme Court which have declared the national law to be constitutional. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S., 623; Lewisohn v. United States, 258 U. S., 630; Grossfield v. United States, 276 U. S., 494.

The petition in error will therefore be dismissed.

Petition in error dismissed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

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

Gabriel Building Co. v. State Ex Rel. Birrell, 186 N.E. 5, 125 Ohio St. 642, 125 Ohio St. (N.S.) 642, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 240 (Ohio 1932).

186 N.E. 5 (Gabriel Building Co. v. State Ex Rel. Birrell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Pizza v. Rezcallah
1998 Ohio 313 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
State Ex Rel. MacDonald v. Shawnee Country Club, Inc.
251 N.E.2d 618 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1969)
Lindsay v. City of Cincinnati
172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 137 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1961)
Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Jacobs
269 S.W.2d 189 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1954)
State, Ex Rel. Brocker v. Rutter
199 N.E. 706 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1935)