State v. Hull

643 N.E.2d 546, 71 Ohio St. 3d 292, 1994 Ohio LEXIS 3004
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 23, 1994
DocketNo. 94-2005
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 643 N.E.2d 546 (State v. Hull) 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. Hull, 643 N.E.2d 546, 71 Ohio St. 3d 292, 1994 Ohio LEXIS 3004 (Ohio 1994).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion to supplement the record is denied, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
643 N.E.2d 546, 71 Ohio St. 3d 292, 1994 Ohio LEXIS 3004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hull-ohio-1994.