Legal Opinion
State v. Beckley
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 18, 1983No. 82-593PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKeefe, J.
The issue sub judice is as narrow as the statute which particularly raises the question is concise. Are R.C. 1333.92 and the penalty provision therefor, R.C. 1333.99(H), constitutional? R.C. 1333.92 reads:
“No person shall propose, plan, prepare, or operate a pyramid sales plan or program.”
A pyramid, sales plan or program is defined in R.C. 1333.91, quod vide. There is no constitutional attack on this definitional section. The penalty for a violation of R.C. 1333.92 is spelled out in R.C. 1333.99(H), which provides:
“Whoever violates section 1333.92 of the Revised Code is guilty of a felony of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Belden v. Union Central Life Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
- State Ex Rel. Herbert v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1944
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Frysinger v. LeechOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Rieser v. Hayslip (In Re Canyon Systems Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2006
- Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland HillsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. DarioOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State ex rel. Sunset Estate Properties, L.L.C. v. Village of LodiOhio Supreme Court · 2015
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.