In re Rudolph

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Rudolph

679 N.E.2d 1130, 79 Ohio St. 3d 157

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1997

DocketNo. 97-411

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 679 N.E.2d 1130 (In re Rudolph) 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 Rudolph, 679 N.E.2d 1130, 79 Ohio St. 3d 157 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Applicant’s problems with alcohol began in 1990; however, it was only in August 1996, after the July 1996 recommendation of the committee that he not be admitted to the bar, that the applicant began an alcohol rehabilitation program. Given applicant’s six-year history of alcohol problems, we find that his rehabilitation should be tested over a period of time more extensive than the past eight months. Accordingly, applicant will be permitted to reapply to take the [158]*158July 1998 bar examination subject to prior investigation and evaluation by the Dayton Bar Association.

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.

Applicant’s problems with alcohol began in 1990; however, it was only in August 1996, after the July 1996 recommendation of the committee that he not be admitted to the bar, that the applicant began an alcohol rehabilitation program. Given applicant’s six-year history of alcohol problems, we find that his rehabilitation should be tested over a period of time more extensive than the past eight months. Accordingly, applicant will be permitted to reapply to take the [158]*158July 1998 bar examination subject to prior investigation and evaluation by the Dayton Bar Association.

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 1130, 79 Ohio St. 3d 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rudolph-ohio-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack