Legal Opinion

State v. Ritzler

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 8, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrow, J.

By this proceeding in error three substantial questions of law are presented for reversal of the judgment:

1. Whether Section 13049, General Code, embraces a moving-picture exhibition such as the one in controversy here.

This point having been directly decided in the affirmative by the Courts of Appeals of three of the districts of the state this court feels bound by those decisions, and therefore holds that the question cannot longer be regarded as an open one.

2. The prosecution under review was com*395menced originally in the Probate Court by affidavit of the prosecuting attorney, and upon…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sekt v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. State v. BowmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1962
  3. Libby Hilsenrath v. School District of the ChathamsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API