Legal Opinion
City of Euclid v. Mabel
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided October 9, 1984No. Nos. 47856 and 47862PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNahra, J.
Grace Mabel, Victoria Cicek, Casimir Choromanski, Jeane Zupanic, Carmen Tarantino, Phylis Jordan and Jim Fratcher, appellants, were convicted of violating Section 1743.32(h) of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Euclid, 1 which prohibits political lawn signs on residential property. Appellant Jim Fratcher had political advertising attached to the outside of his front storm door, and the remaining appellants had signs on their front lawns which advertised the election of a political candidate. After the trial court denied appellants’ motions to dismiss, thus upholding the validity of the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Police Dept. of Chicago v. MosleySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Brandenburg v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cleveland Area Board of Realtors v. The City of EuclidCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Goward v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- Gilleo v. City of LadueDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1991
- Ohio State Ass'n of the United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Johnson Controls, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1997
- Cleveland Area Board of Realtors v. City of EuclidDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1993
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.