State v. Freeman

938 N.E.2d 363, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1460
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 2010·No. 2010-1671·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Cuyahoga App. No. 92809, 2010-Ohio-3714. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. I, and briefing shall proceed as to Proposition of Law No. I.

O’Donnell and Cupp, JJ., dissent.

Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. IV; cause held as to that proposition of law for the decision in 2009-1997, State v. Hodge, Hamilton App. No. C-080968; and briefing schedule stayed.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. VI; cause held as to that proposition of law for the decision in 2009-0477, State v. Dunlap, Cuyahoga App. No. 91165, 2009-Ohio-134; and briefing schedule stayed.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., would also accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. V and hold the cause for the decision in 2009-0477, State v. Dunlap. Pfeifer, J., dissents as to Proposition of Law No. VT.

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

State v. Freeman, 938 N.E.2d 363, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1460 (Ohio 2010).

938 N.E.2d 363 (State v. Freeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Quisi Bryan v. David Bobby
843 F.3d 1099 (Sixth Circuit, 2016)
Bryan v. Bobby
114 F. Supp. 3d 467 (N.D. Ohio, 2015)
E. Liverpool v. Buckeye Water Dist.
2012 Ohio 2821 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
State v. Adkins
2011 Ohio 5149 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)