Legal Opinion

City of South Euclid v. Glazer

South Euclid Municipal Court

Decided November 12, 1974No. Nos. 10771, 11038, 11043, 11080Published

1Opinion of the CourtKleih, J.

Both the Assistant Prosecutor for the city of South Euclid, Ohio and counsel for the defendant agree that the sole issue before this court at this time is whether or not Section 1137.04 of the Codified Ordinances of the city of South Euclid, Ohio, is constitutional. Section 1137.-04 reads as follows:

“No Party Center shall permit any affair or function conducted thereon to remain open after 1 ;00 a. m., pro*10vided, however, upon application of the owner, person, firm, or corporation, and after investigation, the Mayor may grant a special permit to snch time beyond 1:00 a. m. as determined by the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Saia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  3. Cleveland City v. BakerOhio Court of Appeals · 1960
  4. State Ex Rel. Ohio Oil Co. v. City of DefianceOhio Court of Appeals · 1955
  5. City of Columbus v. DollingsOhio Court of Appeals · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API