Porter v. City of Oberlin
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Massachusetts v. MellonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Blair v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- 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.