Opinion

City of Columbus v. Mauk

1 Ohio App. 2d 38
30 Ohio Op. 2d 65
203 N.E.2d 653
1963 Ohio App. LEXIS 623

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed: Jul 2, 1963
Status: Published
Author: Dueeey
On the bench: Bryant, Dueeey, Dtteeey, Troop
Cited by: 1 cases
Authority: More cited than 43.0%

The opinion

Dueeey, J.

concurring. I concur in the reversal on the ground that the record does not establish, in testimony or by

*48

stipulation, the venue of the crime. See 15 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 373, Criminal Law, Section 151, and supplement. In my opinion, the affidavit is poorly drafted but sufficient.

As to the constitutionality of the ordinance, I consider the

Neil House case

(1944), 144 Ohio St., 248 , to be doubtful in its reasoning and controversial in its result. Whether it is now a binding precedent on an intermediate court need not be answered in view of the required reversal on nonconstitutional grounds.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.