State v. Derov

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Derov

2009 Ohio 1111, 903 N.E.2d 636, 121 Ohio St. 3d 269

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 18, 2009

Docket2008-0853 and 2008-0858

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 1111 (State v. Derov) 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. Derov, 2009 Ohio 1111, 903 N.E.2d 636, 121 Ohio St. 3d 269 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The record in the trial court concerning the portable breathalyzer test used in this case is not sufficient to support either the statements in the opinion of the court of appeals regarding the use of the portable breathalyzer and the value of its test results or the judgment that the trial court should not have considered the results of the portable breath test. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings.

{¶ 2} In view of the foregoing disposition of appellant’s Proposition of Law No. II, the notice of certified conflict is dismissed for want of a conflict.

{¶ 3} Sua sponte, the appeal is dismissed as to appellant’s Proposition of Law Nos. I and III as having been improvidently accepted.

{¶ 4} The opinion of the court of appeals may not be cited as authority except by the parties inter se.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent in part and would dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.

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

{¶ 1} The record in the trial court concerning the portable breathalyzer test used in this case is not sufficient to support either the statements in the opinion of the court of appeals regarding the use of the portable breathalyzer and the value of its test results or the judgment that the trial court should not have considered the results of the portable breath test. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings.

{¶ 2} In view of the foregoing disposition of appellant’s Proposition of Law No. II, the notice of certified conflict is dismissed for want of a conflict.

{¶ 3} Sua sponte, the appeal is dismissed as to appellant’s Proposition of Law Nos. I and III as having been improvidently accepted.

{¶ 4} The opinion of the court of appeals may not be cited as authority except by the parties inter se.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent in part and would dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 1111, 903 N.E.2d 636, 121 Ohio St. 3d 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-derov-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack