Home/Ohio Supreme Court/State v. Madrigal

State v. Madrigal

699 N.E.2d 950, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2715
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 24, 1998
Docket97-98
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 699 N.E.2d 950 (State v. Madrigal) 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. Madrigal, 699 N.E.2d 950, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2715 (Ohio 1998).

Opinion

Lucas App. No. CR965761. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County. Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for release of portion of record under seal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for release of portion of record under seal be, and hereby is, denied.

Moyer, C.J., concurs and would also strike the sealed portion from the record. Douglas, J., concurs and would also strike the sealed memo. Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs and notes that the court should not consider the portion of record under seal as not part of the record. Pfeifer, J., would review the sealed record and consider releasing then.

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

Related

State v. Madrigal
721 N.E.2d 52 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
699 N.E.2d 950, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-madrigal-ohio-1998.