Legal Opinion
State v. McGuire
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 10, 1997No. 96-1213PublishedCited by 252 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.
Appellant has raised eighteen propositions of law for our consideration, which we have fully reviewed according to R.C. 2929.05(A). (See Appendix.) However, pursuant to State v. Poindexter (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 1, 520 N.E.2d 568, and subsequent cases, we summarily reject, without discussing, the merits of a number of appellant’s propositions of law, as they involve settled issues. (Propositions of Law Three, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen.) Propositions of Law Two and Seven are waived. We have also independently…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by252 opinions
- State v. MadrigalOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. TreeshOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. HunterOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. UnderwoodOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Donald Williams, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Carl S. Anderson, Respondent-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
247 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.