Legal Opinion

City of Toledo v. Kohlhofer

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 15, 1954No. 4767PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFess, J.

This is an appeal by the city of Toledo on questions of law from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Toledo sustaining a demurrer and dismissing an affidavit charging that the defendant “did, at 2 N. Erie Street in the city of Toledo, Ohio, sell, offer for sale and did exhibit a device or article, to wit: a rubber device commonly known as a condom, intended for the prevention of conception, the same being contrary to Section 17-10-8 of the Municiple [sic] Code for the city of Toledo, Ohio.”

Although no provision is made for an appeal from a judgment adverse to a municipality in Chapter 2953…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. State ex rel. Attorney-General v. CovingtonOhio Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Harris v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Nosowitz v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  5. L. & M. Investment Co. v. CutlerOhio Supreme Court · 1932

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. BurgunOhio Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. State v. BeckleyOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Preterm-Cleveland v. Stephanie McCloudCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
  4. Sanitary Vendors, Inc. v. ByrneSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
  5. State v. ParkerOhio Supreme Court · 1994

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API