In re D.D.

Ohio Supreme Court

In re D.D.

60 N.E.3d 1264, 147 Ohio St. 3d 111

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 23, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-1816

StatusPublished

This text of 60 N.E.3d 1264 (In re D.D.) 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 D.D., 60 N.E.3d 1264, 147 Ohio St. 3d 111 (Ohio 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the holding regarding 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.

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

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the holding regarding 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.E.3d 1264, 147 Ohio St. 3d 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dd-ohio-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack