# City of Cleveland Heights v. Gulko

> Ohio Court of Appeals · October 22, 1970 · 24 Ohio App. 2d 17

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3764287

## Case

- **Full name:** City of Cleveland Heights, Appellee, v. Gulko, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 22, 1970
- **Citations:** 24 Ohio App. 2d 17; 53 Ohio Op. 2d 95; 263 N.E.2d 410; 1970 Ohio App. LEXIS 271
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Day, Wasserman, White
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3764287

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
Defendant, appellant herein, Irving Gulko, assigns four errors. His argument of weight is, in essence, that his conviction for Sunday sales rests under a statute creating arbitrary and unreasonable classifications in violation of the doctrine of equal protection. The statute in issue is R. C. 3773.24.
As an intermediate Court of Appeals, we have not the authority to initiate a fresh consideration of the constitutionality of the policy reflected in the statute. In our view, the federal constitutional question is foreclosed by
McGowan
v.
Maryland
(1961), 366 U. S. 420 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 393 ;
Gallagher
v.
Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc.
(1961), 366 U. S. 617 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 536 ;
Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc.,
v.
McGinley
(1961), 366 U. S. 582 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 551 ; and
Braunfeld
v.
Brown
(1961), 366 U. S. 599 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 563 ; although we find the dissents more persuasive.
We are similarly foreclosed from a new consideration of the Ohio constitutional question by
State
v.
Kidd
(1958), 167 Ohio St. 521 ;
cf. State
v.
Footlick
(1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 206, 208 . It may be, as the concurring opinion in
Footlick
*18
intimates, that a new look at the constitutionality of R. C. 3773.24 is timely in the light of its 1959 amendments. That is for the Supreme Court of Ohio. Nonetheless, there is precept for an intermediate court suggesting it (see
Smith
v.
Flesher
[1967], 12 Ohio St 2d 107, 109) and we do so.
Judgment affirmed.
Day, C. J., and Wasserman, J., concur.
White, J., not participating.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3764287. Public record. Not legal advice.