Ohio v. Lafferty
Ohio Court of Common Pleas
Tappan 113 (1817)
- Written by Alex Hall, JD
Facts
Lafferty (defendant) was convicted of selling unwholesome provisions. Lafferty argued that his conduct was not prohibited by any statutory law and, while acknowledging it violated common law, contended that the state constitution did not adopt the common law. Specifically, Lafferty pointed to Article 3, Section 4 of the constitution, which he claimed limited the court’s jurisdiction to statutory law. Lafferty moved to arrest the conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tappan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.