Legal Opinion
Voelkel v. City of Cincinnati
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 21, 1925No. 18335PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
The sole question here is raised by the third paragraph of the petition in error:
“Said court erred in that its judgment is in violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff in error.”
The ordinance in question provides:
Section 812-10. “Any person, association of persons, firm or corporation carrying on any such trade, profession, occupation or business in said city of Cincinnati without having paid the tax herein provided, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not less than five ($5.00) dollars nor more than one hundred ($100.00)…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Palmer v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- United States v. MosbySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Johnston v. Mayor of MaconSupreme Court of Georgia · 1879
- In re WheelerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. AllisonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. CannarozziNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
- Austin v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1934
- City of Cincinnati v. De GolyerOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- City of Cleveland v. Technisort, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.