In re M.R.

Ohio Supreme Court

In re M.R.

63 N.E.3d 131, 147 Ohio St. 3d 216

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 23, 2016·No. No. 2014-1315·Published

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the holdings regarding due process and double jeopardy 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, Lauzinger, 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 holdings regarding due process and double jeopardy 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, Lauzinger, 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.

In re M.R., 63 N.E.3d 131, 147 Ohio St. 3d 216 (Ohio 2016).

Pincite

63 N.E.3d 131 (In re M.R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related