State ex rel. Rarden v. Butler Cty. Common Pleas Court
Citations
- 174 Ohio St. 3d 88
- 234 N.E.3d 399
- 2023 Ohio 3742
Syllabus
Mandamus and prohibition—Appellant had adequate remedy in ordinary course of law through direct appeal to raise his claim that trial court violated his right to counsel—Trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to sentence or resentence appellant—Court of appeals' judgment dismissing complaint affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ruling that “private expression” in a public forum is protected under the First Amendment, so long as such expression meets permit requirements of “non-interference with other uses of the [forum]”
- holding “that compliance with the Establishment Clause is a state interest sufficiently compelling to justify ... restrictions on speech”
- holding \that compliance with the Establishment Clause is a state interest sufficiently compelling to justify ... restrictions on speech\
- determining that the placement of a cross in a public park by the KKK would not send a message of endorsement
- stating that a ban on all unattended private displays in public parks constitutes a reasonable restriction on speech
- holding “that compliance with the Establishment Clause is a state interest sufficiently com- pelling to justify . . . restrictions on speech”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Per Curiam
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.