Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Porter v. City of Oberlin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1965No. 38734Published

1Concurring in the judgmentSchneider, J.

I concur with the view of the majority that Section 3 of the ordinance is constitutionally repugnant and is severable from the remainder of the ordinance, although I am of the opinion that the function of the court to make even that determination in this case hangs by a brittle thread.

The single plaintiff here is a citizen of, a taxpayer in, and an owner of two parcels of real estate in the city of Oberlin. Only one parcel contains a dwelling, and that is a single-family home occupied by the plaintiff. But, the plaintiff is neither an “owner” nor an “agent” nor a “lending institution” as…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Massachusetts v. MellonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Blair v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  4. Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  5. Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of EmigrationSupreme Court of the United States · 1885

17 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