Legal Opinion
City of Richmond Heights v. LoConti
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided August 7, 1969No. 29148PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSilbert, C. J.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment against defendant in the Lyndhurst Municipal Court which has jurisdiction over the city of Richmond Heights.
Defendant was convicted of violating Section 705.05 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Richmond Heights. That section reads as follows:
“705.05 DISTRIBUTOR’S LICENSE.
“No person shall distribute mechanical amusement devices or juke boxes within the corporate limits by lease, conditional sale or any financial conditional method without a distributor’s license.
“A distributor, also being known as an operator, shall first obtain a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. BowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- City of Cincinnati v. CorrellOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- Village of West Jefferson v. RobinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- Kraus v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1939
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Emerson College v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- Goudreau v. City of ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
- Teamster's Housing, Inc. v. City of East ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
- AE Owner, L.L.C. v. E. ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
- City of Cleveland v. MartinezCity of Cleveland Municipal Court · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.