Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Moock v. City of Cincinnati
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 1, 1929No. 21360 and 21361PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
The chief question for our determination is whether the ordinance of the city of Cincinnati, as applied to the relator, impinges upon his constitutional rights guaranteed to him by the state and federal Constitutions.
In the case of Yutze v. Copelan, Chief of Police, 109 Ohio St., 171, 142 N. E., 33, 32 A. L. R., 1048, the same constitutional questions were fully presented, but were not then decided by this court. It is again urged that the city ordinance contravenes Sections 1 and 2 of Article I of the state Constitution, in that it denies the right of individual contract and confers special…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Gardner v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- City of Rochester v. . GutberlettNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Walker v. JamesonIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Valley Spring Hog Ranch Co. v. PlagmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City of Akron, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- Redman v. Ohio Department of Industrial RelationsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City Of AkronCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City of AkronCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Glenwillow Landfill, Inc. v. City of Akron, OhioDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1979
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.