Madjorous v. State

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 660
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1925
DocketNo. 19118
StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 660 (Madjorous v. State) 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
Madjorous v. State, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 660 (Ohio 1925).

Opinion

MARSHALL, C. J.

The prohibition against remission of fines and suspension of sentence provided in section 6212-17, General Code, is a valid exercise of legislative power and does not invalidate the operative provisions of that section.

Judgment affirmed.

Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Kinkade, JJ., concur. Robinson, J., not participating.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Ohio Law. Abs. 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madjorous-v-state-ohio-1925.