Hart v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Hart v. State

2010 Ohio 4985, 936 N.E.2d 497, 127 Ohio St. 3d 72

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

Docket2010-1258

StatusPublished

This text of 2010 Ohio 4985 (Hart 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

Hart v. State, 2010 Ohio 4985, 936 N.E.2d 497, 127 Ohio St. 3d 72 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. III.

*73 Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., Michael J. Newman, Christopher R. McDowell, and Kurt R. Hunt, for appellant. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to that portion of the judgment that rejected a constitutional challenge to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds on the authority of State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, if any, necessitated by State v. Bodyke.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

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

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. III.

*73 Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., Michael J. Newman, Christopher R. McDowell, and Kurt R. Hunt, for appellant. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to that portion of the judgment that rejected a constitutional challenge to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds on the authority of State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, if any, necessitated by State v. Bodyke.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2010 Ohio 4985, 936 N.E.2d 497, 127 Ohio St. 3d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-state-ohio-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack