Legal Opinion

In re Baby Boy Blackshear

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 2000No. 99-1890PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

Kimbrough presents us with a single proposition of law asking us to find that “[i]n enacting R.C. 2151.031, the Ohio General Assembly intended to exclude an unborn fetus from its definition of ‘child.’ ” The trial court herein apparently permitted Kimbrough to frame the issue in this way because in response to Kimbrough’s arguments, the trial court held that “[c]onsequently an unborn fetus is a ‘child’ under R.C. 2151.031.” While the court of appeals, in affirming the judgment of the trial court, discussed, inter alia, the question of whether a fetus is a child for purposes of R.C. 2151.031,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Williams v. Marion Rapid Transit, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Jasinsky v. PottsOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. State v. GrayOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Werling v. SandyOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. In re RuizWood County Court of Common Pleas · 1986

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. In Re StarkeyOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. In re AsF(F)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. State v. ClemonsOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. In re Baby Boy BlackshearOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. PEOPLE ex rel. H.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2003

13 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