Legal Opinion
State v. Swartz
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 1, 2000No. 98-2598PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.
Today we are asked to determine whether the statute of limitations in R.C. 2901.13(A)(1)(b) barred defendant’s prosecution for nuisance pursuant to R.C. 3767.13(C). For the reasons that follow, we find that it did not. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
“The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Toussie v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Kansas Pacific Railway v. MihlmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- State v. HensleyOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., L.P.A.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
- Boll v. GriffithOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
3Cited by18 opinions
- State ex rel. Doner v. ZodyOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Sexton v. City of MasonOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. SimmonsOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
- Ohio Edison Co. v. WilkesOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.