• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
IN THE TENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSFRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIOPOUR HOUSE, INC.
4301 Bennett RoadToledo, Ohio 43612
Appellant,-VS-OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
246 North High St.Columbus, OH 43215
Appellee.
))))))))))))))
NO. 09 AP-157Trial Court No. 08 CVF07-9510REGULAR CALENDAR APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
BRIEF IN REPLY TO BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES OHIO DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, ET AL
Maurice A. Thompson (0078548)88 E. Broad, Suite 1120Columbus, Ohio 43215Tel: (614) 224-4422Fax: (614) 224 4644Email: mthompson@buckeyeinstitute.org
Counsel of Record for Appellant 
Carol V. Mosholder Principal Assistant Attorney GeneralTobacco Enforcement Section30 East Broad Street, 16
th
Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215Tel: (614) 387-5600Fax: (614) 387-5597Carol.Mosholder@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Counsel for Appellees
 
2
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……...………………………………………………………………3ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.……..……………………………………………………..............4ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW……………….…………………………………………..4ARGUMENT IN REPLY TO APPELLEE’S BRIEF………………………………………..…...51.
 
Legal Conclusions of the Trial Court and Administrative Review Board are not entitled todeference……………………………………………………………………......................52.
 
Since the legislative intent behind R.C. 3794.02 is manifested in the language used, it isnot necessary to resort to other sections of R.C. 3794…………………………………….63.
 
Codified canons of statutory instruction mandate that the word “permit” have meaning,and that a proprietor is not liable when it does everything possible to stop smoking in itsestablishment………………………………………………………………………………64.
 
The Health Department misconstrues the difference between the unintentional presenceof smoke and the unintentional permission of smoking…………………………………..85.
 
Traditions Tavern
does not govern the vagueness argument here………………………...96.
 
The Health Department’s theory that the burden shifts to the Proprietor has no bases inlaw………………………………………………………………………………………..11CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………..12PROOF OFSERVICE……………………………………………………………………………………..12,13
 
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 Akron v. Meissner 
(1993), 92 Ohio App.3d 1, 4, 633 N.E.2d 1201.
 Beau v. Lindley
(1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 310, 383 N.E.2d 907, 10 O.O.3d 438.
 Ravenna Township Trustees v. City of Ravenna
(1996), 117 Ohio App.3d 152, 690 N.E.2d 49.
Slingluff v. Weaver 
(1902), 66 Ohio St. 621, 64 N.E. 574.
Yusuf v. Omar 
, 10
th
Dist. No. 06AP-416, 2006-Ohio-6657.Black’s Law Dictionary (5 Ed. Rev. 1979) 1026.R.C. 1.42R.C. 1.47(B)R.C. 1.47(C)R.C. 3794.02(A)R.C. 3794.02(B)R.C. 3794.02(D)R.C. 3794.02(E)OAC 3701-52-08(E)
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...