State v. Maynard

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Maynard

29 Ohio Law Rep. 68

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided December 29, 1964·No. 38703; 38704; 38705; 38706·Published

Opinion

Certified by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

O’Neill, Judge.

The arrest and prosecution of a person for violation of Section 3773.24, Revised Code (Sunday Closing Law), can be caused by two methods: (1) by filing an affidavit with a judge or clerk of a court of record or with a magistrate and (2) by filing an affidavit with the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with the prosecution for the offense, who, in turn, shall file a complaint. (Section 2935.09, Revised Code.)

Judgments affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Griffith and Herbert, JJ., concur. Gibson, J., concurring in part.

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

Certified by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

O’Neill, Judge.

The arrest and prosecution of a person for violation of Section 3773.24, Revised Code (Sunday Closing Law), can be caused by two methods: (1) by filing an affidavit with a judge or clerk of a court of record or with a magistrate and (2) by filing an affidavit with the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with the prosecution for the offense, who, in turn, shall file a complaint. (Section 2935.09, Revised Code.)

Judgments affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Griffith and Herbert, JJ., concur. Gibson, J., concurring in part.

State v. Maynard, 29 Ohio Law Rep. 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

29 Ohio Law Rep. 68 (State v. Maynard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.