Legal Opinion

Andrews v. Board of Liquor Control

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 23, 1955No. Nos. 34228 and 34238Published

1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.

Both the present cases involve the same legal question.

Although it is true that in the Rufo case it is argued that the provisions of Section 6064-68, General Code, are void because they are indefinite, uncertain, inadequate, unreasonable and ambiguous, we are of the opinion that' their meaning is clear.

It is true that an original container can not be diluted, and the language of the statute is far from perfect grammatically, but we have no doubt as to its meaning from the language of the enactment itself. We are also of the opinion that neither scienter nor guilty knowledge is an essential…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Farrand v. State Medical BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Will v. McCoyOhio Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Gould v. GouldIllinois Supreme Court · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API