Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0539-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DIXON, J.‘", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 544
    STATE v. LUTSCH et al
    Common Pleas, Hamilton County
    661. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — 13195-1 GC, does not require State to show constant and uninterrupted violation right up to the time of filing the petition, to entitle it to an injunction.
    Attorneys — C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and. G. P. Osier, Cincinnati, for State; Jos. B. Kelley, Cincinnati, for Lutsch.
   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.