Legal Opinion

City of Columbus v. Rogers

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1975No. 74-223PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Neill, C. J.

Section 2343.04 of the Columbus City Codes reads:

“No person shall appear upon any public street or other public place in a state of nudity or in a dress not belonging to his or her sex, or in an indecent or lewd dress.”

Appellant states as a proposition of law that Section 2343.04 “* * * is unconstitutionally vague on its face on the grounds it fails to give fair notice of the conduct forbidden by the ordinance and fails to provide guidelines to law enforcement officials charged with its enforcement.”

Appellee maintains that this court should not consider appellant’s void-for-vagueness argument…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  3. Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Winters v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  5. City of Columbus v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. AwanOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Wilson v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State v. BrockwayOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Campbell v. ColleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1996

9 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