Legal Opinion
State v. Burnett
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 17, 2001No. 00-266PublishedCited by 72 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
On August 7, 1996, appellee, the city of Cincinnati, passed Ordinance No. 229-1996. The ordinance enacted Chapter 755 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code, which established drug-exclusion zones within the city. In passing the ordinance, the city council stated that certain areas of the city have a higher incidence of drug-related activity, which leads to the degradation of those areas. Ordinance No. 229-1996, Section 1(A). Further, the city council theorized that many people arrested for or convicted of drug offenses frequently returned to these areas. Section 1(B). Finding that its existing…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Lockhart v. FretwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Collins v. City of Harker HeightsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- Patricia Johnson Michael Au France v. City of CincinnatiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- State v. Graham (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. RobertsOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Myron Dennis Behm, Burton J. Brooks, Bobby Lee Langston, David Leon Brodsky, Jeffrey R. Olson, and Geoff Tate Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2019
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.