Legal Opinion

State v. Wilson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1975No. 74-390PublishedCited by 162 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteRBT, J.

The sole question before this court is whether the payment of a fine and costs in a criminal case renders the conviction moot, so as to preclude review of attack on the conviction or sentence.

The issue of mootness of a criminal case arises only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed upon the basis of the challenged conviction. Cf. St. Pierre v. United States (1943), 319 U. S. 41; Fiswick v. United States (1946), 329 U. S. 211, 222. In the case at bar, appellant has failed to show that he has a substantial stake in the judgment of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Carafas v. LaValleeSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. United States v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  3. Street v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Fiswick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. St. Pierre v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by162 opinions

  1. State v. GolstonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  3. City of Cleveland Heights v. LewisOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  4. State v. BerndtOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Cyran v. Cyran (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018

157 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