State v. Clark

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Clark

109 Ohio St. 3d 1401

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 2006

Docket1987-0327

StatusPublished

This text of 109 Ohio St. 3d 1401 (State v. Clark) 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. Clark, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1401 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Lucas App. No. L-84-443. By entry filed March 8, 2006, this court ordered that appellant’s sentence be carried into execution on Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2006. In order to facilitate this court’s timely consideration of any matters relating to the execution of appellant’s sentence,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the Chief Justice may suspend application of any provisions of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, including, but not limited to, the filing requirements imposed by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(l).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of documents as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2) shall be personal or by facsimile transmission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that counsel of record for the parties shall supply this court with a copy of any document relating to this matter that is filed in, or issued by, any other court in this state or any federal court, as well as any commutation, pardon, or warrant of reprieve issued by the Governor. A copy of the document shall be delivered to the Office of the Clerk as soon as possible, either personally or by facsimile transmission.

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

Lucas App. No. L-84-443. By entry filed March 8, 2006, this court ordered that appellant’s sentence be carried into execution on Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2006. In order to facilitate this court’s timely consideration of any matters relating to the execution of appellant’s sentence,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the Chief Justice may suspend application of any provisions of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, including, but not limited to, the filing requirements imposed by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(l).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of documents as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2) shall be personal or by facsimile transmission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that counsel of record for the parties shall supply this court with a copy of any document relating to this matter that is filed in, or issued by, any other court in this state or any federal court, as well as any commutation, pardon, or warrant of reprieve issued by the Governor. A copy of the document shall be delivered to the Office of the Clerk as soon as possible, either personally or by facsimile transmission.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 Ohio St. 3d 1401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clark-ohio-2006.