Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 Ohio App. 3d 110

619 N.E.2d 1188

State v. Hayes

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 29, 1993

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1993-01-29

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-01-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2022

17 state decisions

901993200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gorman, Judge,

¶1 concurring.

¶2 I am in agreement, under the facts and circumstances of this case, with the holding that the trial court acted improperly when it imposed additional conditions upon Hayes’s probation. I write separately only to emphasize the point that our decision should not be read to impair or prevent action taken by the probation department, in an appropriate case, to add or delete, upon the consent of the probationer, its own reasonable conditions of probation, when the trial court has, in its original order, made compliance with the department’s rules and regulations a general condition of the probation.

/86/ohioapp3d/110 · .json · Public domain