Ohio Supreme Court· 1/10/1996
State v. Richardson
Citations
- 74 Ohio St. 3d 235
- 658 N.E.2d 273
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that Rule 26(B) does not “provide[] for second and subsequent applications for reopening”
- neither App.R. 26 nor State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992), provide for second or subsequent applications for reopening
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court· 2003-06-17· cited 22×
- State v. AllbaughOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-05-13· cited 11×
- State v. CooeyOhio Supreme Court· 2003-07-23· cited 6×
- State v. RichardsonOhio Supreme Court· 1996-01-10· cited 6×
- State v. SlagleOhio Supreme Court· 2002-12-11· cited 5×
- State v. SullivanOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-02-25· cited 2×
- State v. TownsendOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-04-19· cited 1×
- State v. CowanOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-10-09· cited 1×
- State v. DudasOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-02-07· cited 1×
- State v. DavisOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-04-22
- State v. PointerOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-05-28
- State v. BurksOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-12-05
- State v. ParkerOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-03-09
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.