Legal Opinion

Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 4, 1932No. 63PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Butler

The appellants sued the city, its mayor and other officers, in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county to enjoin the enforcement of ordinance No. 50-1929 on the ground of repugnancy to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After a trial at which evidence was taken, that court found the provisions invalid and granted permanent injunction* The court of appeals tried the case de novo and sustained the ordinance; its judgment was affirmed in the highest court of the State. 123 Ohio St. 284; 175 N. E. 196.

The ordinance 1 classifies “driverless automobiles…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hess v. PawloskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  4. Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  5. Kane v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1916

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

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Stephenson v. BinfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  3. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. GrosjeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  4. Continental Baking Co. v. WoodringSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  5. Commonwealth v. FunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

68 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