Case Name: City of Cleveland Heights, Appellee, v. Gulko, Appellant
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1970-10-22
Citations: 24 Ohio App. 2d 17
Docket Number: No. 29515
Parties: City of Cleveland Heights, Appellee, v. Gulko, Appellant.
Judges: Day, C. J., and Wasserman, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 24
Pages: 17–18

Head Matter:
City of Cleveland Heights, Appellee, v. Gulko, Appellant.
[Cite as Cleveland Heights v. Gulko (1970), 24 Ohio App. 2d 17.]
(No. 29515
Decided October 22, 1970.)
Mr. King A. Wilmot, director of law, and Mr. Roger G. Chagnon, for appellee.
Messrs. Selker, Patchan & Einbund, for appellant..

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant, appellant herein, Irving Gulko, assigns four errors. His argument of weight is, in essence, that his conviction for Sunday sales rests under a statute creating arbitrary and unreasonable classifications in violation of the doctrine of equal protection. The statute in issue is R. C. 3773.24.
As an intermediate Court of Appeals, we have not the authority to initiate a fresh consideration of the constitutionality of the policy reflected in the statute. In our view, the federal constitutional question is foreclosed by McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U. S. 420, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393; Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc. (1961), 366 U. S. 617, 6 L. Ed. 2d 536; Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley (1961), 366 U. S. 582, 6 L. Ed. 2d 551; and Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), 366 U. S. 599, 6 L. Ed. 2d 563; although we find the dissents more persuasive.
We are similarly foreclosed from a new consideration of the Ohio constitutional question by State v. Kidd (1958), 167 Ohio St. 521; cf. State v. Footlick (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 206, 208. It may be, as the concurring opinion in Footlick intimates, that a new look at the constitutionality of R. C. 3773.24 is timely in the light of its 1959 amendments. That is for the Supreme Court of Ohio. Nonetheless, there is precept for an intermediate court suggesting it (see Smith v. Flesher [1967], 12 Ohio St 2d 107, 109) and we do so.
Judgment affirmed.
Day, C. J., and Wasserman, J., concur.
White, J., not participating.