Legal Opinion
State v. Mateo
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 16, 1991No. 89-1768PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Re snick, J.
The state of Ohio has appealed that portion of the court of appeals’ decision vacating the forfeiture of appellee’s motor vehicle. Appellee has cross-appealed raising various issues. We will first address the state’s arguments on appeal.
I
The state argues that the court of appeals erred when it applied R.C. 2933.43(C) to the present case. We agree. Appellee was indicted in count three with a violation of R.C. 2925.13, which, at the time pertinent herein, provided in part:
“(A) No person, being the owner, operator, or person in charge of a locomotive, watercraft, aircraft, or other vehicles as…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- United States v. 141st Street Corp. ex rel. HershCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- City of Newark v. VaziraniOhio Supreme Court · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. NievasOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
- State Ex Rel. Municipal Construction Equipment Operators' Labor Council v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 2014
- Bacak v. VentlingOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- State v. RileyOhio Supreme Court · 2024
- Marks v. Aurora Bd. of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.