CLEVELAND v. RUDOLPH (2022)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

The City of CLEVELAND et al., Appellees, v. RUDOLPH, Appellant.

No. 2022-1036

Decided: December 29, 2022

Mark Griffin, city of Cleveland Law Director, and Stephen F. Gorczyca, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee city of Cleveland. Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center and Latina Bailey, for appellee S.W. Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Robert B. McCaleb and Erika B. Cunliffe, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant, Christopher G. Rudolph.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to proposition of law Nos. I and III on the authority of State v. Brasher, ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2022-Ohio-4703, ––– N.E.3d ––––, and proposition of law No. II is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O'Connor, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part and would not dismiss the cause as to proposition of law No. II. Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would order briefing on proposition of law Nos. I and III.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network