Opinion

State v. Dean

  • 170 Ohio App. 3d 292
  • 2007 Ohio 91
  • 866 N.E.2d 1134
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Jan 12, 2007
Status
Published
Author
Painter
On the bench
Hendon, Winkler, Painter
Cited by
1 cases

ordinance forbidding certain vocal solicitations was not content-based because it did not reflect a disagreement with message

How later courts described this case

  • ordinance forbidding certain vocal solicitations was not content-based because it did not reflect a disagreement with message

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Painter, Presiding Judge,

concurring.

{¶ 55} So now we have an ordinance regulating soliciting

without

a registration requirement. Surely that sloppy drafting can be fixed. I concur in Judge Hendon’s excellent analysis.

Ralph Winkler, J., retired, of the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment.

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.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.