State v. Acklin

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Acklin

2001 Ohio 1329, 93 Ohio St. 3d 213

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 2001

Docket2001-0910

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 1329 (State v. Acklin) 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

State v. Acklin, 2001 Ohio 1329, 93 Ohio St. 3d 213 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 93 Ohio St.3d 213.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ACKLIN, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Acklin, 2001-Ohio-1329.] Discretionary appeal allowed—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded for application of State v. Eppinger. (No. 01-910—Submitted July 17, 2001—Decided September 19, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-000335. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of State v. Eppinger (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 743 N.E.2d 881. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Charles H. Bartlett, Jr., for appellant. __________________

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

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 93 Ohio St.3d 213.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ACKLIN, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Acklin, 2001-Ohio-1329.] Discretionary appeal allowed—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded for application of State v. Eppinger. (No. 01-910—Submitted July 17, 2001—Decided September 19, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-000335. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of State v. Eppinger (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 743 N.E.2d 881. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Charles H. Bartlett, Jr., for appellant. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 1329, 93 Ohio St. 3d 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-acklin-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack