Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1999No. 98-1697PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judge Corrigan did not have any duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on Carroll’s successive petition for postconviction relief. State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 271, 667 N.E.2d 391; State ex rel. Luna v. McGimpsey (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 485, 486, 659 N.E.2d 1278, 1278-1279.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Luna v. McGimpseyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. White v. GoldsberryOhio Supreme Court · 1996

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Reynolds v. BasingerOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State v. ByrdOhio Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. State ex rel. Carroll v. CorriganOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State ex rel. Fuller v. SutulaOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. FullerOhio Court of Appeals · 2007

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API