holding that just because a city ordinance forbids juveniles from being present in a billiard hall, the law does not violate the right of freedom of association because it does not preclude the creation and cultivation of an intimate relationship with a juvenile
How later courts described this case
- holding that just because a city ordinance forbids juveniles from being present in a billiard hall, the law does not violate the right of freedom of association because it does not preclude the creation and cultivation of an intimate relationship with a juvenile
- explaining that, for non-protected classifications, and cases that do not involve fundamental rights, the appropriate level of scrutiny is rational-basis review the most deferential standard of review
- stating that an order is final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02 if it (1) affects a substantial right, (2) in effect determines the action, and (3) prevents a judgment
- stating that a judgment would become a final appealable order on the date of journalization
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Cook, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with Sections I and 11(A) of the majority opinion. I dissent from the conclusion that the city’s method of enforcement violates equal protection. On this issue, I agree with the analysis of the court of appeals. I would find that, under the rational-basis test, Trzebuckowski has failed to demonstrate that the city’s method of enforcing this ordinance bears no rational relation to the legitimate governmental interest in promoting the welfare of minors.
Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.