Legal Opinion
Toney v. State
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided April 23, 2009No. Nos. 91582-91585, 91588-91596 and 91870-91872PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
{¶ 1} This consolidated appeal arises from the trial court's ruling in a group of sex-offender reclassification cases. In case Nos. 91582-91855, 91588-91596, and 91870-91872, defendant-appellant, the state of Ohio ("state"), appeals the trial court's order finding that the retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act ("AWA") is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs-appellees. Finding merit to the appeal, we reverse and remand.
{¶ 2} In this appeal, the following plaintiffs-appellees were all previously classified under Ohio's former "Megan's Law" as follows:
Habitual Sexual Offenders
{¶ 3}…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Zollner v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. WarrenOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. Ellis, 90844 (12-4-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. Omiecinski, 90510 (3-12-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re Cases Held for the Decision in State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- Toney v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2010