State v. Fischer

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Fischer

123 Ohio St. 3d 1410

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 30, 2009·No. 2009-0897·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Summit App. No. 24406, 2009-Ohio-1491.

On motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration is granted to the following extent: The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I. The Clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, and the parties shall brief this ease in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., would grant the motion as to all Propositions of Law. Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent and would deny the motion for reconsideration.

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

Summit App. No. 24406, 2009-Ohio-1491.

On motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration is granted to the following extent: The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I. The Clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, and the parties shall brief this ease in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., would grant the motion as to all Propositions of Law. Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent and would deny the motion for reconsideration.

State v. Fischer, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1410 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

123 Ohio St. 3d 1410 (State v. Fischer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related