Legal Opinion

State v. Dorso

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 1983No. 82-425PublishedCited by 174 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLocher, J.

In the case at bar, this court is asked to determine whether the city of Cincinnati’s “Loud Musical Noises” ordinance, Section 910-9, meets constitutional prescriptions for definiteness. To accomplish this task we must examine specifically the language in the ordinance that establishes the threshold for the attachment of criminal liability for, inter alia, playing music or amplifying sound, i.e., such activities may not be conducted “in such *61manner as to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, having due regard for the proximity of places of residence, hospitals or other residential…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954

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

3Cited by174 opinions

  1. State v. AwanOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Conley v. ShearerOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. TannerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Shover v. Cordis Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Sedar v. Knowlton Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990

169 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