Legal Opinion
Holsman v. Thomas
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 21, 1925No. 18830PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
Plaintiff in error claims that the ordinance is unconstitutional' in that it conflicts with Section 5868 of the Ohio General Code and violates Sections 1 and 2 of Article I, and Section 26 of Article II, of the Ohio Constitution.
We shall consider these questions in order.
Section 5868, General Code, reads as follows:
“The court of common pleas, or a judge thereof in vacation, may appoint and license suitable persons residing in the county, to exercise the occupation of auctioneer and make sales by auction, according to law, for one year from the date of such appointment. Such person so…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- People v. . Beakes Dairy Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Brazee v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Mogul v. GaitherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1941
- State v. GordonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Swisher v. BrownSupreme Court of Colorado · 1965
- People v. SellMichigan Supreme Court · 1945
- Steinberg-Baum & Co. v. Dayton CountrymanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1956
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.