Legal Opinion

Firestone v. City of Cambridge

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1925No. 18646PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

Three questions are presented hy the record in this case: First, has a municipality power to require the owners of automobiles, used for private and not for commercial purposes, to pay a license fee as a prerequisite to the use of such motor vehicle on the streets of such municipality? Second, are the fees exacted by the ordinance in question license fees, or do they constitute an excise tax? Third, if they constitute an excise tax, are Ohio municipalities authorized to exact and collect the same?

Counsel for the municipality claim authority is conferred to enact and enforce the provisions of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. City of Terre Haute v. KerseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
  2. City of Cincinnati v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Fisher Bros. Co. v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Foltz Grocery & Baking Co. v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Crane v. City of MiddletownOhio Court of Appeals · 1915

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1933
  2. State v. CaplanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1927
  3. Haefner v. City of YoungstownOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Carter Carburetor Corp. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
  5. East Ohio Gas Co. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1966

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API