State v. LaSalle

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. LaSalle

93 Ohio St. 3d 1282

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 10, 2001

Docket01-1403

StatusPublished

This text of 93 Ohio St. 3d 1282 (State v. LaSalle) 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. LaSalle, 93 Ohio St. 3d 1282 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Summit App. No. 20488. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed July 30, 2001, at page 2:

“Where an application to seal a criminal conviction is filed before the effective date of an amendment to R.C. 2953.36, which amendment prohibits the sealing of the record of the type of [1283]*1283conviction referenced in the application, and the trial court rules on the application after the effective date of the amendment, is the amendment to be applied retroactively to the application made prior to the effective date of the amendment?”

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent. The conflict case is State v. Heaton (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 38, 669 N.E.2d 885.

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

Summit App. No. 20488. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed July 30, 2001, at page 2:

“Where an application to seal a criminal conviction is filed before the effective date of an amendment to R.C. 2953.36, which amendment prohibits the sealing of the record of the type of [1283]*1283conviction referenced in the application, and the trial court rules on the application after the effective date of the amendment, is the amendment to be applied retroactively to the application made prior to the effective date of the amendment?”

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent. The conflict case is State v. Heaton (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 38, 669 N.E.2d 885.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 Ohio St. 3d 1282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lasalle-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack