Cleveland v. Rudolph

Ohio Supreme Court

Cleveland v. Rudolph

2022 Ohio 4682, 208 N.E.3d 824, 170 Ohio St. 3d 85

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 29, 2022

Docket2022-1036

StatusPublished

This text of 2022 Ohio 4682 (Cleveland v. Rudolph) 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

Cleveland v. Rudolph, 2022 Ohio 4682, 208 N.E.3d 824, 170 Ohio St. 3d 85 (Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland v. Rudolph, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4682.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-4682 THE CITY OF CLEVELAND ET AL., APPELLEES, v. RUDOLPH, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland v. Rudolph, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4682.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Brasher. (No. 2022-1036―Submitted December 23, 2022―Decided December 29, 2022.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 111128, 2022-Ohio-2363. _________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to proposition of law Nos. I and III on the authority of State v. Brasher, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022- Ohio-4703, ___ N.E.3d ___, and proposition of law No. II is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. O’CONNOR, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part and would not dismiss the cause as to proposition of law No. II. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

FISCHER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would order briefing on proposition of law Nos. I and III. _________________ Mark Griffin, city of Cleveland Law Director, and Stephen F. Gorczyca, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee city of Cleveland. Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center and Latina Bailey, for appellee S.W. Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Robert B. McCaleb and Erika B. Cunliffe, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant, Christopher G. Rudolph. _________________

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

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland v. Rudolph, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4682.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-4682 THE CITY OF CLEVELAND ET AL., APPELLEES, v. RUDOLPH, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland v. Rudolph, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4682.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Brasher. (No. 2022-1036―Submitted December 23, 2022―Decided December 29, 2022.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 111128, 2022-Ohio-2363. _________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to proposition of law Nos. I and III on the authority of State v. Brasher, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022- Ohio-4703, ___ N.E.3d ___, and proposition of law No. II is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. O’CONNOR, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part and would not dismiss the cause as to proposition of law No. II. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

FISCHER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would order briefing on proposition of law Nos. I and III. _________________ Mark Griffin, city of Cleveland Law Director, and Stephen F. Gorczyca, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee city of Cleveland. Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center and Latina Bailey, for appellee S.W. Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Robert B. McCaleb and Erika B. Cunliffe, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant, Christopher G. Rudolph. _________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2022 Ohio 4682, 208 N.E.3d 824, 170 Ohio St. 3d 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-v-rudolph-ohio-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack