Legal Opinion
City of Cincinnati v. Karlan
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 27, 1973No. 72-842PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
At the trial of this cause, the arresting officer testified upon direct examination as follows:
“Q. Directing your attention to that date, did you have occasion to come in contact with the defendant, Steve Karl an?
“A. Yes, sir; I did.
“Q. Tell the jury on what date and what time you first came in contact with him,
*36“A. It was January the 19th, this year, at about 5:05 p. m.
“Q. Where did you see him?
“A. In the rear lot of District 3’s police station.
“Q. Where is District 3 located?
“A. 3201 Warsaw Avenue.
“Q. Is that in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, state of Ohio?
“A. Yes, sir; it is.
“Q. Prior to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Cohen v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Gooding v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Matter of Welfare of S. L. J.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- City of Cincinnati v. KarlanOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. HoffmanOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- State v. AutheletSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1978
- State v. AutheletSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1978
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.