In re Nemec

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Nemec

679 N.E.2d 685, 79 Ohio St. 3d 52

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1997

DocketNo. 97-412

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 679 N.E.2d 685 (In re Nemec) 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 Nemec, 679 N.E.2d 685, 79 Ohio St. 3d 52 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We accept the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe that applicant should demonstrate his freedom from substance abuse for a longer period before being permitted to sit for the bar examination. We therefore order that applicant be permitted to reapply to take the July 1998 bar examination, to coincide with the approximate date of the conclusion of his two-year contract with OLAP.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

We accept the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe that applicant should demonstrate his freedom from substance abuse for a longer period before being permitted to sit for the bar examination. We therefore order that applicant be permitted to reapply to take the July 1998 bar examination, to coincide with the approximate date of the conclusion of his two-year contract with OLAP.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 N.E.2d 685, 79 Ohio St. 3d 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nemec-ohio-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack