Roberts v. State
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtSherick, J.
It is the first claim of the accused that §13108-2 GC, is unconstitutional, first, in that it is unreasonable, oppressive, confiscatory, and in contravention of their rights; second, that being a law of a general nature it has not uniform operation; third, that it is so vague, indefinite, and uncertain that it is not understandable; and, fourth, that by 'reason of its uncertainty, that it violates the constitutional provisions of due process of law. The section reads;
“Any broker in stocks or bonds who (a) having in his possession for safe keeping or otherwise stocks, bonds, or other…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Scheuer v. Salmon Weed & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Sprague v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1932
- Heaphy v. KerrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Vance Lumber Co. v. Fraser, Goodwin & ColverWashington Supreme Court · 1931
3Cited by4 opinions
- City of Columbus v. BecherOhio Court of Appeals · 1961
- Deshler v. HoopsHenry County Court of Common Pleas · 1963
- Mattox v. GibsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- State v. GrayOhio Court of Appeals · 1990