City of Euclid v. Fitzthum
Ohio Court of Appeals
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
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- 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
- Village of Hudson v. Albrecht, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- Village of Oakwood v. MakarOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- City of Pepper Pike v. LandskronerOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
- Smythe v. Butler TownshipOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Cleveland Industrial Square, Inc. v. Cleveland Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 1992