Legal Opinion
City of Akron v. Holley
Akron Municipal Court
Decided November 16, 1989No. 89 CRB 6683PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTed Schneiderman, J.
On September 26, 1989, the defendant, Jason Holley, through his attorney, filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the ordinance under which the defendant is charged is unconstitutional on its face. Defendant was charged with violating the recently enacted ordinance of the city of Akron captioned “Loitering for the Purpose of Engaging in Drug-Related Activity,” as set forth in Section 138.26 of the Akron Codified Ordinances. (“Section” 138.26 is set forth in the Appendix.)
The defendant in his motion to dismiss and supporting brief argues three separate grounds for the unconstitutionality of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Robinson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Kelley v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- City of Tacoma v. LuveneWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Wyche v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
- First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Salt Lake City v. Transamerica Insurance Company, a California Corporation, and John ClarkCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- City of Cleveland v. JohnsonCity of Cleveland Municipal Court · 2005
- State v. E.L.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.