State v. Walls

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Walls

2010 Ohio 1806, 125 Ohio St. 3d 1201

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 28, 2010

Docket2009-2112

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2010 Ohio 1806 (State v. Walls) 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. Walls, 2010 Ohio 1806, 125 Ohio St. 3d 1201 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} Appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of the discretionary appeal in this matter, reported at 124 Ohio St.3d 1476, 2010-Ohio-354, 921 N.E.2d 247.

{¶ 2} The motion for reconsideration is granted. The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to its holding on the second assignment of error below on the authority of State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with State v. Singleton.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, Acting C.J., and Lanzinger, J., dissent and would deny the motion for reconsideration. The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer did not participate in the decision in this case.

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

{¶ 1} Appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of the discretionary appeal in this matter, reported at 124 Ohio St.3d 1476, 2010-Ohio-354, 921 N.E.2d 247.

{¶ 2} The motion for reconsideration is granted. The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to its holding on the second assignment of error below on the authority of State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with State v. Singleton.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, Acting C.J., and Lanzinger, J., dissent and would deny the motion for reconsideration. The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer did not participate in the decision in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2010 Ohio 1806, 125 Ohio St. 3d 1201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walls-ohio-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack