Legal Opinion
State v. Beehive Ltd. Partnership
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided August 2, 1993No. 63121PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Krupansky, Judge.
Defendant-appellant Beehive Limited Partnership (“Beehive”) appeals from its convictions for forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31, uttering in violation of R.C. 2913.31 and tampering with records of the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (“CMHA”) in violation of R.C. 2913.42.
Beehive was indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury with five co-defendants on October 24, 1991 following an investigation by the United States Inspector General and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor of influence peddling, corruption of public officials and other wrongdoing in connection with two local…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. MartinOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- United States v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State v. ComenOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. BlankenshipOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. GravenOhio Supreme Court · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. MileyOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- State v. Hill, 07ap-889 (8-21-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Estate of Labrum & Doak v. Bechtle (In Re Labrum & Doak, LLP)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
- State v. MischOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State v. LesterOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.