State v. Sheckles
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 3339
Syllabus
Criminal law—Touhy regulations do not create rights for criminal defendants, and a violation of such regulations is not generally a basis for a criminal defendant to request an exclusionary remedy—Touhy regulations are not rules of procedural admissibility to be wielded by a criminal defendant to exclude testimony of a current or former federal employee—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and cause remanded to trial court.
Judges: Brunner, J.
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States Ex Rel. Touhy v. RagenSupreme Court· 1951-02-26· cited 526×
- State v. GrubbOhio Supreme Court· 1986-12-26· cited 498×
- City of Defiance v. KretzOhio Supreme Court· 1991-05-15· cited 240×
- City of Kettering v. HollenOhio Supreme Court· 1980-12-23· cited 139×
- State v. DownsOhio Supreme Court· 1977-07-13· cited 126×
- State v. MyersOhio Supreme Court· 1971-06-23· cited 87×
- State v. BrunsonOhio Supreme Court· 2022-12-05· cited 45×
- Cabral v. United States Department of JusticeFirst Circuit· 2009-11-12· cited 44×
- State v. DavisOhio Supreme Court· 1978-10-18· cited 39×
- Downs v. OhioSupreme Court· 1978-07-03· cited 13×
- State v. BellamyOhio Supreme Court· 2022-10-19· cited 12×
- Agility Public Warehousing Company K.S.C.P. v. U.S. Department of DefenseDistrict of Columbia· 2017-03-30· cited 9×
- State v. ShecklesOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-01-18· cited 2×
- State v. ShecklesOhio Supreme Court· 2024-09-06· cited 1×
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.