· 4/23/2024
State v. Hoy
Citations
- 240 N.E.3d 1086
- 2024 Ohio 1555
Syllabus
The trial court failed to make required findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at sentencing hearing in order to impose consecutive sentences. Judgments reversed and remanded for resentencing.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding timing is the only difference between 25 “The purpose of sections 271(e)(1) and (2
- “[I]n Glaxo, we did not limit the scope of section 271(e)(2) to direct infringement actions.”
- “The only difference in the analysis of a traditional infringement claim and a claim of infringement under section 271(e)(2) is the timeframe under which the elements of infringement are considered.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Edelstein
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.