Home/Ohio Supreme Court/In Re A.W.

In Re A.W.

2016 Ohio 5455, 60 N.E.3d 1264, 147 Ohio St. 3d 110
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 23, 2016
Docket2015-1645
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 Ohio 5455 (In Re A.W.) 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
In Re A.W., 2016 Ohio 5455, 60 N.E.3d 1264, 147 Ohio St. 3d 110 (Ohio 2016).

Opinion

(¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the holdings regarding double jeopardy and' due process on the authority of In re D.S., 146 Ohio St.3d 182, 2016-Ohio-1027, 54 N.E.3d 1184.

{¶ 2} The remainder of the appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, and French, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, Lanzinger, and O’Neill, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in In re D.S. and would order briefing on the issues raised in the remainder of the appeal. *111 Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Charlyn Bohland, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant, A.W.

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

Related

In Re D.S.
2016 Ohio 1027 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 Ohio 5455, 60 N.E.3d 1264, 147 Ohio St. 3d 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aw-ohio-2016.