Legal Opinion
Ross v. Petro
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided August 22, 2005No. 504CV0849PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOWD, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION. .968
968 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.
977 III. DISCUSSION.
977 A. Introduction.
977 1. Applicable Law.
978 2. This Court’s Task.
978 B. De Novo Analysis of Objections to the R&R.
978 1. Respondent’s Objections (Doc. No. 61).
979 a. Determination of “manifest necessity”.
980 1) Protecting the ends of public justice.
982 2) Improper application of State law.
983 3) Appeals Court decision deemed erroneous and incorrect
983 4) Conclusion re: Manifest Necessity.
983 b. The Harpster exception.
984 2. Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 60).
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ross v. PetroCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- State v. RossOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. RossOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. RossOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
- Ross v. PetroDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.