Doe v. Ronan

920 N.E.2d 371, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1440

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Doe v. Ronan. Read the opinion of the Court — 127 Ohio St. 3d 188 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 27, 2010·No. 2009-2104·Published

Opinion

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, No. 1:09CV243. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.6. The court will answer the following questions:

“1. [Do] R.C. 3319.391 and Ohio Adm.Code 3301-20-01 violate the Retroactivity Clause of Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution?”

“2. [Do] R.C. 3319.391 and Ohio Adm.Code 3301-20-01 violate the Contract Clause of Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution?”

Moyer, C.J., and Cupp, J., would answer the first question only. O’Donnell, J., dissents.

Motion for admission pro hac vice of David M. Lieberman by Benjamin C. Mizer granted.

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

“1. [Do] R.C. 3319.391 and Ohio Adm.Code 3301-20-01 violate the Retroactivity Clause of Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution?”

“2. [Do] R.C. 3319.391 and Ohio Adm.Code 3301-20-01 violate the Contract Clause of Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution?”

Moyer, C.J., and Cupp, J., would answer the first question only. O’Donnell, J., dissents.

Motion for admission pro hac vice of David M. Lieberman by Benjamin C. Mizer granted.

Doe v. Ronan, 920 N.E.2d 371, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1440 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

920 N.E.2d 371 (Doe v. Ronan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.