Loading…

State v. Lundy — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

State v. Lundy

84 Ohio St. 3d 279 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1999

Full text

The State of Ohio v. Lundy

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Rush (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cluster ID: 6885332

Citations

84 Ohio St. 3d 279
703 N.E.2d 773

Cited by

State v. Russell
Ohio Court of Appeals · May 19, 2022
State v. Jordan
Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017
State v. Campbell
Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2016
State v. Reeves
Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2016
State v. Evans
Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2014
State v. Croom
Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2013
State v. Richmond
Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2011
State v. Sutton
Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2011
State v. Evans
Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2007

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (7-1-2004)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2004

State v. Fannin, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2002

State v. Hernandez, Unpublished Decision (2-24-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2000

Parentheticals

sufficient evidence defendant constructively possessed drugs when drugs “within arms length of [defendant] at the time the search warrant was executed”
State v. Russell
“a specification is, by its very nature, ancillary to, and completely dependent upon, the existence of the underlying criminal charge or charges to which the specification is attached.”
State v. Campbell