McCloskey v. McCloskey
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 1900
Syllabus
The domestic relations court erred in failing to clarify an ambiguous term in the divorce decree. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to hold a third-party defendant (the administrator of the husband's estate) in contempt of court. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- determining that the trial court’s imposition of 6 consecutive sentences was justified because Tyler committed offenses against multiple victims
- concluding because the defendant committed his offenses against more than one victim, the imposition of consecutive sentences on two Class A child molesting convictions was justified
- noting that the protected persons statute allows for the admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay
- discussing how the protected persons statute addresses and protects the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation
- noting the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by running enhanced sentences consecutively and that it had rejected a similar claim in Robertson
- noting prerecorded statements inadmissible through PPS may nevertheless be admissible under Rules of Evidence
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lewis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.