Legal Opinion

State v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 2002No. 2000-1812PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

{¶ 1} Responding to information regarding a thirteen-yeaf-old girl named Sarah, officers of the Worthington Police Department on August 20,1998, learned that appellee Mark W. Maxwell had contacted Sarah via the Internet and that she had agreed to meet him at a store in Worthington that afternoon. Sarah disclosed to the police officers that she and appellee, who had identified himself as a nineteen-year-old male, had discussed meeting for the express purpose of *255engaging in sexual relations. Appellee was actually twenty-seven. Sarah agreed to meet appellee while wearing a wire so that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. Provident Bank v. WoodOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  4. State v. JordanOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. WacOhio Supreme Court · 1981

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. State v. HornerOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State v. PariagOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  3. State v. LozierOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2010

34 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