Legal Opinion

Roberts v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 9, 1933No. 4240 & 4243PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Scheuer v. Salmon Weed & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  2. Sprague v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Heaphy v. KerrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
  4. Vance Lumber Co. v. Fraser, Goodwin & ColverWashington Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Columbus v. BecherOhio Court of Appeals · 1961
  2. Deshler v. HoopsHenry County Court of Common Pleas · 1963
  3. Mattox v. GibsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. State v. GrayOhio Court of Appeals · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API