State v. Cherif

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Cherif

2011 Ohio 956, 128 Ohio St. 3d 356

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

Docket2010-2188

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2011 Ohio 956 (State v. Cherif) 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. Cherif, 2011 Ohio 956, 128 Ohio St. 3d 356 (Ohio 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 2} The portion of the judgment of the court of appeals addressing appellant’s second assignment of error below is vacated on the authority of State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of our decision in State v. Johnson.

Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton and McGee Brown, JJ., dissent and would not accept the discretionary appeal.

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

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 2} The portion of the judgment of the court of appeals addressing appellant’s second assignment of error below is vacated on the authority of State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of our decision in State v. Johnson.

Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton and McGee Brown, JJ., dissent and would not accept the discretionary appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 Ohio 956, 128 Ohio St. 3d 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cherif-ohio-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack