State v. Lutsch

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

State v. Lutsch

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 539

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County·Decided July 1, 1924·Published

Opinion

DIXON, J.‘

Epitomized Opinion

Action by Prohibition Commissioners to enforce “Padlock Law” by injunction. Petition alleges violations of the prohibition law between certain dates. The demurrer was overruled.

In an action to abate a nuisance under 13195-1 GC. proof that the defendant has been repeatedly convinced of violating Ithe prohibition laws warrants the .presumption that violations will continue unless injunctive relief is granted, and it is not necessary to show constant and uninterrupted violations right up to the tim’e of filing suit.

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

DIXON, J.‘

Epitomized Opinion

Action by Prohibition Commissioners to enforce “Padlock Law” by injunction. Petition alleges violations of the prohibition law between certain dates. The demurrer was overruled.

In an action to abate a nuisance under 13195-1 GC. proof that the defendant has been repeatedly convinced of violating Ithe prohibition laws warrants the .presumption that violations will continue unless injunctive relief is granted, and it is not necessary to show constant and uninterrupted violations right up to the tim’e of filing suit.

State v. Lutsch, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 539 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1924).

Pincite

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 539 (State v. Lutsch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.