Roy v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Roy v. State

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

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 10, 2010·No. 2009-2163·Published

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.

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

Pincite

921 N.E.2d 245 (Roy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related