Legal Opinion

State v. Gipson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1998No. 96-1929PublishedCited by 122 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The sole issue in this appeal may be phrased in terms of the following question: Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or commit an error of law by imposing the mandatory fine and by requiring Gipson to satisfy that fine over the course of his probation? For the reasons that follow, we answer that question in the negative. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the issue before us and reinstate the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.

Statutes throughout R.C. Chapter 2925 provide for the imposition of mandatory fines for certain drug-related offenses,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. PlessOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. MeadeOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. LefeverOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. State v. GutierrezOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. State v. PendletonOhio Court of Appeals · 1995

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

3Cited by122 opinions

  1. State v. PilgrimOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. State v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State v. WhiteOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State v. GipsonOhio Supreme Court · 1998

117 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