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

In re R.A.H.

In re R.A.H.
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 3, 2016 · Connor, Donnell, French, Kennedy, Lanzinger, Neill, Pfeifer, Re, Stated, Would
148 Ohio St. 3d 531; 2016 Ohio 7592; 71 N.E.3d 1015

In re R.A.H.

Opinion of the Court

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals as to proposition of law No. I is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals to apply In re A.G., 148 Ohio St.3d 118, 2016-Ohio-3306, 69 N.E.3d 646.

{¶2} Proposition of law No. II is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lanzinger, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. O’Donnell and Kennedy, JJ., dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in In re AG.

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

↑