Legal Opinion
Salem v. Liquor Control Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 20, 1973No. 72-729PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Per curiam
The obvions “harmful potentialities” when the sale of intoxicating beverages occurs in retail outlets necessitates that the liquor industry be strictly regulated, and that regulation includes not only the sale of liquor but also the conditions and circumstances surrounding the liquor premises. Solomon v. Liquor Control Comm. (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 31, 34; Ziffrin v. Reeves (1939), 308 U. S. 132; Major Liquors v. Omaha (1972), 188 Neb. 628, 198 N. W. 2d 483.
Realizing that the liquor industry requires such regulation, the states have not granted irrevocable permits in the nature of vested…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- California v. LaRueSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Crowley v. ChristensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Ziffrin, Inc. v. ReevesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. YoungOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Salem Inn, Inc., and M & L Rest. Inc. v. Louis J. Frank, Individually and as Police Commissioner of Nassau CountyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- State v. WorthyOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Boston Licensing Board v. Alcoholic Beverages Control CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.