Legal Opinion
Coston v. Petro
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided November 7, 2005No. 2:05-cv-00125PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
BECKWITH, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs in this case allege that they are registered sex offenders in the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint challenges the constitutionality of Ohio Rev.Code § 2950.031 on a variety of grounds. Section 2950.031 forbids registered sex offenders from establishing a residence or occupying a residential premises that is located within 1,000 feet of a school premises. If a sex offender violates § 2950.031, an owner or lessee of real property located within 1,000 feet of that school premises, or any…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of DallasSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Aurelio Duarte v. City of Lewisville, TexasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
- People v. MosleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- Hyle v. PorterOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
- Wallace v. StateDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- Green v. BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS OF COUNTY OF HASKELLDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 2006
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.