Legal Opinion

Department of Liquor Control v. Sons of Italy Lodge 0917

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1992No. Nos. 91-1792 and 91-2486PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeight, J.

The issue certified for our review is: “Whether the notice requirements set forth in [former] R.C. 2933.43(C) are mandatory or whether substantial compliance with the notice requirements is all that is required to vest the trial court with jurisdiction to proceed where the defendant has actual notice.” Because the language of R.C. 2933.43(C) is mandatory, strict compliance with the notice and publication provisions contained therein is required.

In construing a forfeiture statute the court must begin with a fundamental premise: Forfeitures are not favored by the law. The law requires that we…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Robinson v. HanrahanSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  3. City of Lakewood v. PapadelisOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State v. LilliockOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. BarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1988

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. State v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Smith v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State ex rel. Village of Botkins v. LawsOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Liquidating Trustee of the Amcast Unsecured Creditor Liquidating Trust v. Baker (In Re Amcast Industrial Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2007
  5. State ex rel. Pizza v. RezcallahOhio Supreme Court · 1998

42 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