Legal Opinion
Buckeye Churn Co. v. Abbott.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 8, 1926No. 18975 and 19105PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The paramount question in both of these eases is whether Section 35, Article II, of the Ohio Constitution, as amended November, 1923, effective January 1, 1924, was retroactive in effect, or whether its operation was prospective only. Other questions presented by the record have heretofore been passed upon by this court. ' See Kuhn v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 109 Ohio St., 263, 142 N. E., 370, and authorities therein cited.
The court is of opinion that the amendment shows no language from which its retroactive character can be established, and unless there is language used in such…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Strickler v. City of Colorado SpringsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1891
- Shreveport v. ColeSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Prescott v. DuncanTennessee Supreme Court · 1912
- Willcox v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- State ex rel. Scott v. DirckxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Schlagheck v. WinterfeldOhio Court of Appeals · 1958
- Bagsarian v. Parker Metal CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1968
- Sweeny v. Keystone Driller Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1930
- O'Mara v. Alberto-Culver Co., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1966
- Bruney v. LittleBelmont County Court of Common Pleas · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.