Legal Opinion
State v. Saurman
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 17, 1980No. 80-201PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
R. C. 1533.161 is a valid exercise of the police power if the desired result of the statute is within the state’s police power, and there must be a rational relationship between the chosen means and that result. See Benjamin v. Columbus (1957), 167 Ohio St. 103, certiorari denied, 357 U. S. 904.
R. C. 1533.161 was enacted for the protection of game. There is no question that the protection of game is within the state’s police power. Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm. of Montana (1978), 436 U. S. 371, 391; State v. Hanlon (1907), 77 Ohio St. 19. Thus, the only question before the court is whether R.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- State ex rel. Jackman v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga CountyOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- Hilton v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. MorrisonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
- Eastland Woods v. City of TallmadgeOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- City of Dayton v. GigandetOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- State v. BarkerOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. BorgesOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.