Legal Opinion

City of Cleveland v. Branch

City of Cleveland Municipal Court

Decided October 26, 2000No. 2000 CRB 038119Published

1Opinion of the Court

Mabel M. JaspeR, Judge.

The defendant, Norwood Branch, is charged with a violation of Section 607.19 of the Codified Ordinances of the city of Cleveland (“C.C.O. 607.19”), commonly called “drug-related activities prohibited.” That section prohibits five categories of specified conduct when done with specific intent to engage in drug-related activity as defined in specified Ohio or municipal drug laws. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the charge of drug-related activity.

As defendant’s motion is in substance a facial challenge to the ordinance, no specific facts were presented to this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. City of Houston v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. City of Akron v. RowlandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. City of Cleveland v. StephensOhio Court of Appeals · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API