Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Brookpark v. Rodojev

Brookpark v. Rodojev

118 N.E.3d 257, 2019 Ohio 768, 154 Ohio St. 3d 1520
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 6, 2019
Docket2019-0056
StatusPublished

This text of 118 N.E.3d 257 (Brookpark v. Rodojev) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brookpark v. Rodojev, 118 N.E.3d 257, 2019 Ohio 768, 154 Ohio St. 3d 1520 (Ohio 2019).

Opinion

On review of an order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are ordered to brief the issue stated at paragraph 27 of the court of appeals' opinion journalized December 13, 2018: "[W]hether the results of any speed measuring device, using either radar or laser technology, is admissible without expert testimony establishing, or the taking of judicial notice of, the scientific reliability of the principles underlying the technology."

The conflict cases are State v. Cleavenger , 2018-Ohio-446, 93 N.E.3d 1027, ¶ 34 (7th Dist.), and In re Z.E.N. , 4th Dist. Scioto No. 18CA3826, 2018-Ohio-2208, ¶ 19-24.

O'Connor, C.J., and French and Stewart, JJ., would certify the conflict as to In re Z.E.N., 2018-Ohio-2208, only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Cleavenger
93 N.E.3d 1027 (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Belmont County, 2018)
In re Z.E.N.
114 N.E.3d 594 (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Scioto County, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 N.E.3d 257, 2019 Ohio 768, 154 Ohio St. 3d 1520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brookpark-v-rodojev-ohio-2019.