Skip to main content
· 11/5/1959

Budowanec v. Gaydos

Citations

  • 162 N.E.2d 198
  • 110 Ohio App. 357
  • 84 Ohio Law. Abs. 239
  • 13 Ohio Op. 2d 120
  • 1959 Ohio App. LEXIS 759

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that when a defendant does not object to a “magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we review any challenge to the district court’s factual findings for plain error”
  • explaining that when a defendant does not object to a “magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we review any challenge to the district court’s factual findings for plain error”
  • “Abandonment is determined based on the objective facts available to the investigating officers at the time they conducted the challenged search.” (emphasis added)
  • “But we need not determine whether the entry was lawful[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Skeel, Hurd, Kovachy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.