State v. Clark

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Clark

63 N.E.3d 1182, 147 Ohio St. 3d 253

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Clark. Read the opinion of the Court — 137 Ohio St. 3d 346 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 11, 2016·No. No. 2015-1634·Published

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for application of State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374, 2016-Ohio-2814, 56 N.E.3d 965.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary H. McGrath and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant.

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

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for application of State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374, 2016-Ohio-2814, 56 N.E.3d 965.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary H. McGrath and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant.

State v. Clark, 63 N.E.3d 1182, 147 Ohio St. 3d 253 (Ohio 2016).

Pincite

63 N.E.3d 1182 (State v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related