Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Wetterstroem v. Department of Liquor Control

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1935No. 24793PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

The general demurrer of the relator to the joint answer searches the record, and the well pleaded allegations contained both in the petition and in the joint answer are thereby confessed to be true.

Counsel on both sides agree that the crucial question to be determined is: Do the Pure Food and Drug Laws of Ohio apply to the sale of spirituous liquors by the Ohio Department of Liquor Control? Or, stating it more specifically, are the respondents amenable to and are they required to comply with the Pure Food and Drug Laws in respect to the labeling or selling of “whiskey”, as defined in Sections…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. South Carolina v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Ohio v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Frankenstein v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Winery v. Board of Liquor ControlOhio Court of Appeals · 1956
  3. A. B. Jac, Inc. v. Liquor Control CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
  4. State Ex Rel. McGraw v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1935
  5. State, Ex Rel. Brocker v. RutterOhio Court of Appeals · 1935

2 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