Legal Opinion

City of Springfield v. Hurst

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1944No. 29889PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

The sole question is the constitutionality of the applicable part of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4217, of the city of Springfield, passed November 9, 1942. Section 2 of the ordinance reads as follows:

“No person, partnership, corporation, or agent or employee therein engaged in or connected with the sale of eyeglasses, ophthalmic lenses, eyeglass frames and mountings, shall include in any advertisement by newspaper, radio, display or otherwise, any statement advertising the price of lenses, or of complete eyeglasses, including lenses, either with or without professional services or credit…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Roschen v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  3. Commonwealth v. S. S. Kresge Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  4. State Ex Rel. Booth v. Beck Jewelry Enterprises, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Commonwealth v. FerrisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. RonesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1953
  2. Ritholz v. City of Salt LakeUtah Supreme Court · 1955
  3. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry v. RobertsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Bedno v. FastWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. v. WilliamsonDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1954

13 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