Case Name: STATE v. LUTSCH et al
Court: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 539
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. LUTSCH et al
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 539–539

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.