Legal Opinion

State v. Bodyke

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 2010No. 2008-2502PublishedCited by 344 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} In this appeal,1 we decide the constitutionality of the current version of R.C. Chapter 2950, as amended by 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10 (“the Adam Walsh *267Act” or “the AWA”), as those provisions apply to sex offenders whose cases were adjudicated prior to its enactment.

{¶ 2} Although we discharge our duty with great respect for the role of the legislature, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), 372 U.S. 144, 159, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644, for the reasons that follow we are compelled to find that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, the reclassification provisions in the AWA, are unconstitutional…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. ChadhaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

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

3Cited by344 opinions

  1. State v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  3. State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  4. State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  5. State v. Henderson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020

339 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