Hungerford v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Hungerford v. State

924 N.E.2d 843, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1539

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 14, 2010

Docket2010-0291

StatusPublished

This text of 924 N.E.2d 843 (Hungerford 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

Hungerford v. State, 924 N.E.2d 843, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1539 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Lake App. No. 2008-L-073, 2009-Ohio-6997. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. I-IV, VII, IX, and X; cause held for the decision in 2008-2502, State v. Bodyke, Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387; and briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., would not accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. X. Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and O’Donnell, JJ., would also accept the appeal on Proposition of Law Nos. V, VI, and VIII. O’Connor and Cupp, JJ., would not accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. VII. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

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

Lake App. No. 2008-L-073, 2009-Ohio-6997. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. I-IV, VII, IX, and X; cause held for the decision in 2008-2502, State v. Bodyke, Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387; and briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., would not accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. X. Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and O’Donnell, JJ., would also accept the appeal on Proposition of Law Nos. V, VI, and VIII. O’Connor and Cupp, JJ., would not accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. VII. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

924 N.E.2d 843, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hungerford-v-state-ohio-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack