State v. Balderson

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Balderson

887 N.E.2d 347, 118 Ohio St. 3d 194

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 14, 2008·No. No. 2007-1203·Published

Opinion

{¶ 1} As to Proposition of Law No. I, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568.

{¶ 2} As to Proposition of Law No. II, the cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, J., dissents.

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

{¶ 1} As to Proposition of Law No. I, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568.

{¶ 2} As to Proposition of Law No. II, the cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, J., dissents.

State v. Balderson, 887 N.E.2d 347, 118 Ohio St. 3d 194 (Ohio 2008).

Pincite

887 N.E.2d 347 (State v. Balderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related