Legal Opinion

City of Euclid v. Fitzthum

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 26, 1976No. 34380PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

These cases .were consolidated for trial..Each of these defendants was, found guilty of violating a Euclid ordinance proscribing the parking or storage of trailers unless parked or stored in enclosed structures. The defendants appeal under a single number and each raises the identical issues on appeal. There are four assignments of error:

“Assignment of Error No.
“The Trial Court erred in finding the defendants guilty because Section 1377.06, as applied to each of the defendants herein, bears no substantial relation to- the pro^

motion of the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Village of Hudson v. Albrecht, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Village of Oakwood v. MakarOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. City of Pepper Pike v. LandskronerOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. Smythe v. Butler TownshipOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. Cleveland Industrial Square, Inc. v. Cleveland Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API