Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Ohio Supreme Court, 2016

In re M.R.

In re M.R.
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided August 23, 2016 · Appeal, Briefing, Connor, Donnell, French, Kennedy, Lauzinger, Neill, Pfeifer, Raised, Re, Remainder, Stated, Would
147 Ohio St. 3d 216; 63 N.E.3d 131

In re M.R.

Opinion of the Court

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the holdings regarding due process and double jeopardy on the authority of In re D.S., 146 Ohio St.3d 182, 2016-Ohio-1027, 54 N.E.3d 1184.

{¶ 2} The remainder of the appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, and French, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, Lauzinger, and O’Neill, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in In re D.S. and would order briefing on the issues raised in the remainder of the appeal.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑