In re O.V.
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 4628
Syllabus
The juvenile court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate appellant a delinquent child for committing acts that if charged as an adult would constitute gross sexual imposition where all sexual contact between appellant and the victim took place in New York, not Ohio, since a child may be adjudicated a delinquent child in Ohio only if the child is found to have violated a law of this state, the United States, or an ordinance of a political subdivision of this state.
Judges: S. Powell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-10-08· cited 312×
- State v. MbodjiOhio Supreme Court· 2011-06-21· cited 107×
- In Re Z.R.Ohio Supreme Court· 2015-08-20· cited 65×
- In re S.C.R.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2018-10-08· cited 12×
- State v. WalstonOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-05-06· cited 6×
- State v. Van DyneOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-04-07· cited 4×
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.