State v. Wright

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Wright

785 N.E.2d 755, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1212

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 9, 2003·No. No. 2002-0234·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The certification of conflict is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently certified; there is want of a conflict.

Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Cooney, Lundberg Stratton and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent. Colleen Conway Cooney, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Cook, J. Carol A. Wright, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, David M. Gormley, State Solicitor, and Kirk A. Lindsey, Associate Solicitor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Attorney General of Ohio. David L. Doughten and Paul Skendelas, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

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

{¶ 1} The certification of conflict is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently certified; there is want of a conflict.

Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Cooney, Lundberg Stratton and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent. Colleen Conway Cooney, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Cook, J. Carol A. Wright, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, David M. Gormley, State Solicitor, and Kirk A. Lindsey, Associate Solicitor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Attorney General of Ohio. David L. Doughten and Paul Skendelas, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

State v. Wright, 785 N.E.2d 755, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1212 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

785 N.E.2d 755 (State v. Wright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related