Legal Opinion
Yutze v. Copelan
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided March 26, 1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCushing, J.
Charles Yutze was arrested, tried and convicted for a violation of Section 973 of the Code of Ordinances of the city of Cincinnati. He failed to pay the fine of fifty dollars and costs, and was committed to jail.
Error was not prosecuted to the judgment of the trial court. Instead, Yutze secured a writ of *462habeas corpus in the court of common pleas. At the hearing of that writ, the court of common pleas dismissed it, and remanded Yutze to the custody of the chief of police. This action is prosecuted to reverse that judgment.
Plaintiff in error claims that Section 973 of the Code of Ordinances of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Henry v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Valley Spring Hog Ranch Co. v. PlagmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- Wheeler v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Pantlind v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Ex parte PharrOhio Court of Appeals · 1919
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dowd, Warden v. GrazerIndiana Supreme Court · 1953
- Masten v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
- East Hill Coal & Supply Co. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1924
- Dowd, Warden v. GrazerIndiana Supreme Court · 1953