Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County, 1924

State v. Lutsch

State v. Lutsch
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County · Decided July 1, 1924 · Dixon
2 Ohio Law. Abs. 539

Counsel

Attorneys — C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and. G. P. Osier, Cincinnati, for State; Jos. B. Kelley, Cincinnati, for Lutsch.

State v. Lutsch

Opinion of the Court

DIXON, J.‘

Epitomized Opinion

Action by Prohibition Commissioners to enforce “Padlock Law” by injunction. Petition alleges violations of the prohibition law between certain dates. The demurrer was overruled.

In an action to abate a nuisance under 13195-1 GC. proof that the defendant has been repeatedly convinced of violating Ithe prohibition laws warrants the .presumption that violations will continue unless injunctive relief is granted, and it is not necessary to show constant and uninterrupted violations right up to the tim’e of filing suit.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.