State v. Lutsch

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

State v. Lutsch

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 539

CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

DecidedJuly 1, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 539 (State v. Lutsch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lutsch-ohctcomplhamilt-1924.