State v. Rush
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 53.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. RUSH, APPELLEE. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MITCHELL, APPELLANT. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. TOLER, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Rush,
1998-Ohio-423.] Statutory construction—Phrase “notwithstanding division (B) of Section 1.58 of the Revised Code” contained in Section 5 of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2, as amended by Section 3 of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 269, cannot be construed as an attempt to amend R.C. 1.58(B)—Criminal law—Amended sentencing provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 apply only to…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Beazell v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. Ware, 2007-L-154 (7-25-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. WilsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- State v. LauharnOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- State v. Lawwill, 88251 (5-31-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- State ex rel. Dodson v. PhippsOhio Supreme Court · 2024
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.