Notes of Decisions
Cited in
72
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case:
State v. Cook, 700 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio 1998).
State v. Cook, 700 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio 1998).
· cites it 8× “Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Ferguson, 896 N.E.2d 110 (Ohio 2008).
· cites it 8× “02 sets forth the legislative findings and public policy declaration of the General Assembly, which maintained prior findings that by providing adequate notice and information about offenders who commit sexually oriented offenses, the public “can develop constructive plans to…”
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d 404 (1998).
· cites it 8× “Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108.
· cites it 4× “02(B), in light of its determination that "[s]ex offenders and child-victim offenders pose a risk of engaging in further sexually abusive behavior even after being released from * * * confinement," R.C. 2950.02(A)(2). The General Assembly's legislative finding that…”
State v. Small, 833 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2005).
· cites it 6× “2d 342 ; R.C. 2950.02. *385 {¶ 25} Based upon Cook, Williams, and the plain language of R.”
State v. Williams, 728 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio 2000).
· cites it 4× “R.C. 2950.02(A)(1). Dissemination of information is deemed to be justified because sexual predators and habitual sex offenders pose a high risk of recidivism, and protection of the public from these types of sex offenders is of “paramount governmental interest.”
State v. Blankenship (Slip Opinion), 2015-Ohio-4624, 48 N.E.3d 516.
· cites it 6× “02(B), in light of its determination that “[s]ex offenders and child-victim offenders pose a risk of engaging in further 24 January Term, 2015 sexually abusive behavior even after being released from * * * confinement,” R.C. 2950.02(A)(2). From the General Assembly’s decision to…”
State v. Buttery (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-2998, 164 N.E.3d 294.
· cites it 3× “In R.C. 2950.02, the General Assembly sets forth its reasoning for requiring registration for juvenile offenders and others: (A) The general assembly hereby determines and declares that it recognizes and finds all of the following: *** (2) Sex offenders and child-victim…”
State v. Worthy, 728 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio 2000).
· cites it 5× “R.C. 2950.02(A)(1). Dissemination of information is deemed to be justified because sexual predators and habitual sex offenders pose a high risk of recidivism, and protection of the public from these types of sex offenders is of “paramount governmental interest.”
State v. Ward, 720 N.E.2d 603 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999).
· cites it 4× “02, the General Assembly made the following declaration concerning its intent in passing the sexual predator law: “(A) The general assembly hereby determines and declares that it recognizes and finds all of the following: “(1) If the public is provided adequate notice and…”
State v. Hayden, 96 Ohio St. 3d 211 (2002).
· cites it 2× “However, before the community notification requirement is imposed, the law requires that a hearing be held either before sentencing or *214 before an incarcerated sex offender is released to determine whether that person should be labeled a sexual predator or habitual sex…”
State v. Hayden, 2002-Ohio-4169, 773 N.E.2d 502.
· cites it 2× “{¶10} Recognizing that sexual predators and habitual sex offenders have a high risk of recidivism, R.C. 2950.02(A)(2), the law allows in certain cases for the 1.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.02(A): 7 cases
State v. Cook, 700 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio 1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d 404 (1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Ward, 720 N.E.2d 603 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999).
“02, the General Assembly made the following declaration concerning its intent in passing the sexual predator law: “(A) The general assembly hereby determines and declares that it recognizes and finds all of the following: “(1) If the public is provided adequate notice and…”
State v. Lee, 716 N.E.2d 751 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1998).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.02(A)(1): 17 cases
State v. Cook, 700 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio 1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Ferguson, 896 N.E.2d 110 (Ohio 2008).
“02 sets forth the legislative findings and public policy declaration of the General Assembly, which maintained prior findings that by providing adequate notice and information about offenders who commit sexually oriented offenses, the public “can develop constructive plans to…”
State v. Williams, 728 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio 2000).
“R.C. 2950.02(A)(1). Dissemination of information is deemed to be justified because sexual predators and habitual sex offenders pose a high risk of recidivism, and protection of the public from these types of sex offenders is of “paramount governmental interest.”
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d 404 (1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Small, 833 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2005).
“2d 342 ; R.C. 2950.02. *385 {¶ 25} Based upon Cook, Williams, and the plain language of R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.02(A)(2): 27 cases
State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108.
“02(B), in light of its determination that "[s]ex offenders and child-victim offenders pose a risk of engaging in further sexually abusive behavior even after being released from * * * confinement," R.C. 2950.02(A)(2). The General Assembly's legislative finding that…”
State v. Cook, 700 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio 1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Ferguson, 896 N.E.2d 110 (Ohio 2008).
“02 sets forth the legislative findings and public policy declaration of the General Assembly, which maintained prior findings that by providing adequate notice and information about offenders who commit sexually oriented offenses, the public “can develop constructive plans to…”
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d 404 (1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.02(A)(4): 1 case
State v. Ferguson, 896 N.E.2d 110 (Ohio 2008).
“02 sets forth the legislative findings and public policy declaration of the General Assembly, which maintained prior findings that by providing adequate notice and information about offenders who commit sexually oriented offenses, the public “can develop constructive plans to…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.02(A)(5): 6 cases
State v. Cook, 700 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio 1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Ferguson, 896 N.E.2d 110 (Ohio 2008).
“02 sets forth the legislative findings and public policy declaration of the General Assembly, which maintained prior findings that by providing adequate notice and information about offenders who commit sexually oriented offenses, the public “can develop constructive plans to…”
State v. Williams, 728 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio 2000).
“R.C. 2950.02(A)(1). Dissemination of information is deemed to be justified because sexual predators and habitual sex offenders pose a high risk of recidivism, and protection of the public from these types of sex offenders is of “paramount governmental interest.”
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d 404 (1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Small, 833 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2005).
“2d 342 ; R.C. 2950.02. *385 {¶ 25} Based upon Cook, Williams, and the plain language of R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.02(A)(6): 2 cases
Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.02(B): 38 cases
State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108.
“02(B), in light of its determination that "[s]ex offenders and child-victim offenders pose a risk of engaging in further sexually abusive behavior even after being released from * * * confinement," R.C. 2950.02(A)(2). The General Assembly's legislative finding that…”
State v. Cook, 700 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio 1998).
“Former R.C. 2950.02. Only the frequency and duration of the registration requirements have changed.”
State v. Blankenship (Slip Opinion), 2015-Ohio-4624, 48 N.E.3d 516.
“02(B), in light of its determination that “[s]ex offenders and child-victim offenders pose a risk of engaging in further 24 January Term, 2015 sexually abusive behavior even after being released from * * * confinement,” R.C. 2950.02(A)(2). From the General Assembly’s decision to…”
State v. Ferguson, 896 N.E.2d 110 (Ohio 2008).
“02 sets forth the legislative findings and public policy declaration of the General Assembly, which maintained prior findings that by providing adequate notice and information about offenders who commit sexually oriented offenses, the public “can develop constructive plans to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.