37712, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Liquor Control and Michael A. Akrouche

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “federal courts must accord great deference” to “sensible” distinctions drawn in social and economic legislation
• noting that the rationality inquiries of substantive due process and equal protection law are “analogous”
• rejecting due process challenge to Ohio law which allowed for existing liquor licenses to be restricted in scope because “no notice or opportunity to be heard need proceed any legislative action of general applicability”
• “[n]o essential issues of material fact are presented for resolution upon a facial challenge to a statute or ordinance”
• “[n]o essential issues of material fact are presented for resolution upon a facial challenge to a statute or ordinance” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “A state statute or local ordinance which by its terms compels unconstitutional results is ‘facially’ unconstitutional and hence is incapable of any valid application.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).