Roy v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Roy v. State

921 N.E.2d 245, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1473

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 10, 2010

Docket2009-2163

StatusPublished

This text of 921 N.E.2d 245 (Roy v. State) 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

Roy v. State, 921 N.E.2d 245, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1473 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler App. No. CA2009-02-067, 2009-Ohio-5808. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. IV, V, and VI; cause held for the decision in 2008-2502, State v. Bodyke, Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387; and briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., would also accept and hold the appeal on Proposition of Law No. II and accept Proposition of Law No. I without holding. O’Donnell, J., would also accept and hold the appeal on Proposition of Law Nos. I, II, and III. Pfeifer, O’Connor, and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

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

Butler App. No. CA2009-02-067, 2009-Ohio-5808. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. IV, V, and VI; cause held for the decision in 2008-2502, State v. Bodyke, Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387; and briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., would also accept and hold the appeal on Proposition of Law No. II and accept Proposition of Law No. I without holding. O’Donnell, J., would also accept and hold the appeal on Proposition of Law Nos. I, II, and III. Pfeifer, O’Connor, and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 N.E.2d 245, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-v-state-ohio-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack