In re R.A.H.

Ohio Supreme Court

In re R.A.H.

2016 Ohio 7592, 71 N.E.3d 1015, 148 Ohio St. 3d 531

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 3, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-1610

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2016 Ohio 7592 (In re R.A.H.) 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 R.A.H., 2016 Ohio 7592, 71 N.E.3d 1015, 148 Ohio St. 3d 531 (Ohio 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals as to proposition of law No. I is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals to apply In re A.G., 148 Ohio St.3d 118, 2016-Ohio-3306, 69 N.E.3d 646.

{¶2} Proposition of law No. II is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lanzinger, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. O’Donnell and Kennedy, JJ., dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in In re AG.

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

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals as to proposition of law No. I is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals to apply In re A.G., 148 Ohio St.3d 118, 2016-Ohio-3306, 69 N.E.3d 646.

{¶2} Proposition of law No. II is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lanzinger, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. O’Donnell and Kennedy, JJ., dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in In re AG.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 Ohio 7592, 71 N.E.3d 1015, 148 Ohio St. 3d 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rah-ohio-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack