State v. Robinson, 86-1129
| Decision Date | 24 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1129,86-1129 |
| Citation | 28 OBR 165,28 Ohio St.3d 65,502 N.E.2d 634 |
| Parties | , 28 O.B.R. 165 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. ROBINSON et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appeal and Cross-Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Greene county.
William F. Schenck, Xenia, Pros. Atty., for the State.
Carretta, Cartwright, Barber & Cornish Co., L.P.A., and Catherine M. Barber, Fairborn, for George and Linda Robinson.
The judgment of the court of appeals in case Nos. 85 CA 47 and 85 CA 48, with respect to its ruling on R.C. 2907.323(A)(3), is reversed on authority of State v. Meadows (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 43, 354, 503 N.E.2d 697, and that issue is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
The judgment of the court of appeals in case Nos. 85 CA 47 and 85 CA 48, with respect to its ruling on R.C. 2907.323(A)(1) and (2), is vacated and these issues are remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in light of State v. Meadows, supra.
SWEENEY, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Young
...solely on the authority of Meadows. State v. Modeen (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 64, 28 OBR 164, 502 N.E.2d 634; State v. Robinson (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 65, 28 OBR 165, 502 N.E.2d 634. Thus, the question certified to this court in today's cases has already been However, it is well-established that......
-
State v. Beavers, 11AP-1064
...the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals' determination that R.C. 2907.323 was unconstitutionally vague. See State v. Robinson, 28 Ohio St.3d 65 (1986). Therefore, we find appellant's reliance upon this authority to be meritless. {¶ 19} Finally, appellant challenges the deter......
- State v. Modeen, 86-1148
-
State v. Michael G. Kovacevich, 88-LW-0715
...to the manner in which the material or performance is used or transferred." ******************************** " * * *." In State v. Robinson (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 65, the Supreme Court reversed an appellate court ruling that R.C. 2907.323(A)(1), (2), and (3) were facially unconstitutional.®......