Brandenburg v. City of Covington
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Peb Curiam.
1. A paragraph of a tax ordinance of a city is not illegal, unreasonable, or void upon its face, which provides: “ Picture shows or electric theatre per year $100.00. Permit required for use of gallery. Permit in discretion of mayor and council.”
2. Under conflicting evidence upon the question as 'to whether the plaintiff in error had made application to the city authorities for the issuance of the permit to operate a gallery, it does not appear that the court abused his discretion in refusing an interlocutory injunction. The foregoing ruling necessarily disposes of the case; and it is unnecessary to pass upon the constitutional questions involved.
■Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., absent.
Concurrence
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pish, C. J.
I specially concur in the judgment refusing the grant of an interlocutory injunction, for the reason that, in my opinion, the facts of the ease bring it clearly within the general rule that equity will not enjoin the prosecution for. the violation of a municipal ordinance which is attacked as being unconstitutional or void for other reasons.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.