Legal Opinion
City of Cincinnati v. Correll
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 2, 1943No. 29230PublishedCited by 78 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
The single question presented by this record is the constitutionality of an ordinance, Section 523-1, Code of Ordinances of the city of Cincinnati, making it unlawful to permit barber shops to be open for business during hours other than specified therein.
The city of Cincinnati is a home rule city governed by a charter duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 7, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.
Section 34, Article II of the Ohio Constitution reads as follows:
“Laws-may be passed fixing and regulating the hours of labor, establishing a minimum wage, and providing for the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Patton v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1934
- Chaires v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- State Ex Rel. Newman v. City of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 1929
- City of Louisville v. KuhnCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
- Olds v. KlotzOhio Supreme Court · 1936
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- Arnold v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Moore v. City of MiddletownOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Gerijo, Inc. v. City of FairfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. LilliockOhio Supreme Court · 1982
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.