Legal Opinion
City of Lakewood v. Papadelis
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 5, 1987No. 86-1330PublishedCited by 224 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether a moving party is required to file a motion to compel discovery before a trial court may impose sanctions pursuant to Crim. R. 16(E)(3) for failure to comply with discovery requests.1
The court of appeals held, based on State v. Hicks, supra, that Crim. R. *316 contemplates a two-step process. The first step requires a party to make a written request for discovery. If such request is not complied with, the second step requires a party to file a motion to compel discovery with the court. The court of appeals reasoned that a trial court has no authority…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Richardson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1971
- Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- State v. SmithArizona Supreme Court · 1979
- Robert Harold FENDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert GOLDSMITH, and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by224 opinions
- State v. DarmondOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. TichonOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State v. PalmerOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- The State Ex Rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, JudgeOhio Supreme Court · 2014
219 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.