In Oakwood v. Gummer (1974), 38 Ohio St. 2d 164, 311 N.E.2d 517., the defendant had been arrested for, and found guilty of, violating an Oakwood ordinance that prohibited participating in a parade for which no permit had been obtained. On appeal, the defendant alleged that the ordinance was unconstitutional because the licensing and permit requirement constituted a prior restraint. Oakwood argued that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the ordinance because he had never applied for a permit. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the defendant had standing to challenge the ordinance. " 'In the area of freedom of expression it is well established that one has standing to challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion to an administrative office, whether or not his conduct could be proscribed by a properly drawn statute, and whether or not he applied for a license'." 29 Id. at 168