Legal Opinion

City of Cincinnati v. Sandow

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 27, 1931No. 3880PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHamilton, J.

The ordinance provides:

“Upon the conviction of any person for violating any of the provisions of this ordinance, the trial court may, in addition to and independent of all other penalties provided for herein, prohibit such person from operating or driving a motor vehicle for a period of not to exceed six months; * * *”

The fine and suspension were, therefore, within the provisions of the ordinance.

Sandow prosecuted error to the Court of Common Pleas from the judgment of the Municipal Court. Upon consideration, the Court of Common Pleas found that part of the sentence, imposing upon the…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kistler v. City of WarrenOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
  2. Continental Automobile Mutual Ins v. MortonOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
  3. City of Toledo v. BestOhio Court of Appeals · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API