Dayton v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Dayton v. State

2022 Ohio 2073, 195 N.E.3d 130, 167 Ohio St. 3d 565

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 22, 2022

Docket2021-0592

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2022 Ohio 2073 (Dayton v. State) 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

Dayton v. State, 2022 Ohio 2073, 195 N.E.3d 130, 167 Ohio St. 3d 565 (Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Dayton v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2073.]

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-2073 THE CITY OF DAYTON, APPELLEE, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Dayton v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2073.] Court of appeals’ judgment vacated, and cause remanded for application of Newburgh Hts. v. State. (No. 2021-0592—Submitted June 14, 2022—Decided June 22, 2022.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 28818, 2021-Ohio-967. _________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to that court for application of Newburgh Hts. v. State, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1642, __ N.E.3d __. KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. O’CONNOR, C.J., would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment only as to the home-rule issues. _________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Barbara J. Doseck, Dayton City Attorney, and John C. Musto, Dayton Chief Trial Counsel, for appellee. Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, Stephen P. Carney, Deputy Solicitor General, and Caitlyn Nestleroth Johnson and Iris Jin, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant. ________________________

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 Dayton v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2073.]

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-2073 THE CITY OF DAYTON, APPELLEE, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Dayton v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2073.] Court of appeals’ judgment vacated, and cause remanded for application of Newburgh Hts. v. State. (No. 2021-0592—Submitted June 14, 2022—Decided June 22, 2022.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 28818, 2021-Ohio-967. _________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to that court for application of Newburgh Hts. v. State, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1642, __ N.E.3d __. KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. O’CONNOR, C.J., would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment only as to the home-rule issues. _________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Barbara J. Doseck, Dayton City Attorney, and John C. Musto, Dayton Chief Trial Counsel, for appellee. Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, Stephen P. Carney, Deputy Solicitor General, and Caitlyn Nestleroth Johnson and Iris Jin, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant. ________________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2022 Ohio 2073, 195 N.E.3d 130, 167 Ohio St. 3d 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-v-state-ohio-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack