Opinion

Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers' & Salesmen's Licensing Board v. Memphis Auto Sales

  • 103 Ohio App. 347
  • 3 Ohio Op. 2d 377
  • 142 N.E.2d 268
  • 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 854
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
May 8, 1957
Status
Published
Author
Skeel
On the bench
Hurd, Skeel, Kovachy
Cited by
11 cases

The opinion

Skeel, P. J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in sustaining the errors presented on behalf of the appeal of the Memphis Auto Sales but dissent to the holding of the majority that subsection (D) of Section 4517.06, Revised Code, and Rule No. 9 thereunder, is unconstitutional.

Certainly the Legislature has the power to determine that the conduct of an agency engaged in the sale of new motor vehicles is a business affected by the public interest. This fact has been recognized by Legislatures and courts throughout the country. Having determined that fact, the board, under the authority granted by the Legislature, is clothed with authority to regulate the business in such manner as is necessary to protect the public morals, health and safety of the people.

The fact that dealers may be restricted in their activities by virtue of the failure to secure a franchise for the sale of new motor vehicles from the manufacturer is not such a circumstance as to justify a court in holding that the section and the rule adopted thereunder are unconstitutional.

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.