Legal Opinion
Longbrake v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 10, 1925No. 18746PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
The provisions of the statute claimed to have been violated, Section 1089-9, General Code, are as follows:
“For the purpose of this act a bottled soft drink, except pure nonalcoholic fruit juices, shall consist of a beverage made from pure cane or beet sugar syrup containing pure flavoring materials with or without added fruit acid, with or without added color, and shall contain in the finished product not less than 7 per cent, sugar, provided that nothing in this act shall prohibit the use of any other harmless ingredient in the manufacture of such soft drinks, but any substitute for sugar…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Powell v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- People v. PriceIllinois Supreme Court · 1913
- Commonwealth v. KevinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hilton v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State ex rel. Clark v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- Grown v. City of CleverlandOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- State v. GrahamCity of Columbus Municipal Court · 1933