Legal Opinion
Stredelman v. City of Cincinnati
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 4, 1931No. 22516PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.
The question of the constitution-
ality of the ordinance of the city of Cincinnati herein involved has heretofore been presented to and decided by this court in the case of State, ex rel. Zielonka, City Solicitor, v. Carrel, Aud., 99 Ohio St., 220, 124 N. E., 134. Its constitutionality was there upheld. That decision was subsequently approved, and followed in the case of Globe Security & Loan Co. v. Carrel, Aud., 106 Ohio St., 43, 138 N. E., 364, and also in the cases of Marion Foundry Co. v. Landes, Aud., and Clawson v. Landes, Aud., 112 Ohio St., 166, 147 N. E., 302, and was adhered to in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- City of Cincinnati v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925
- Foundry Co. v. LandesOhio Supreme Court · 1925
3Cited by6 opinions
- Marsh & McLennan of California, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Haefner v. City of YoungstownOhio Supreme Court · 1946
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- Corr. Corp. of Am. v. YoungstownOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- In re the Registration of the Matai Title "Fagaima"High Court of American Samoa · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.