Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Lindway

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1936No. 25701Published

1ConcurrenceJ ones, J.

In connection with two of my associates I am concurring only in the judgment. Since this record discloses that the premises searched was used otherwise than as a private dwelling, I concur in the judgment of reversal on authority of Ciano v. State, 105 Ohio St., 229, 137 N. E., 11. I would concur for another reason, to which I shall later allude.

Upon the substantive law of the case, the majority opinion states that, “Because of the uncertainty existing in our own decisions * * * it would seem both wise and necessary to lay down a definite rule,” etc. There is no uncertainty in our own…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  3. Agnello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  4. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  5. Byars v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927

5 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