PPT-Supreme Court of Ohio Ohio Judicial Center

Artwork North Reflecting Pool MALCOLM COCHRAN  American b 1948   In Principle and In Practice   2006   Granite   Funded by a grant from the Ohio State Bar Foundation South Reflecting. S Constitutions Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures requires police to obtain a warrant to search a cell phone The decision generated considerable comment across the country as this was the 57375rst such ruling fro Why this Courtshould reconsider its decision:NO MERIT TO FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, PAST PRESENT ORBURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO PRETENDERSDOCTRINE THAT A PLAINTIFF MUST ASSERT ITS OWNLEGAL RIGHTS AND MAY NOT A I.TABLE OF CONTENTSII. STATEMENT WHY THIS CASE IS NOT OF PUBLICOR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGEEXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREATGENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . The test to determine whether material is obscene was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607: Explanation why thiscase isnot acaseof public or great general concernProcedural HistoryOn March 4, 2010, ten-year-old N.J. approached her guidance counselor ather younger sister on the morning of Mar TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGEEXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC................................................................2ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW ....................... TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iiARGUMENT .......................................................... IN THE SUPREME COURT OFOHIOHABTAM GEBIPlaintiff-AppelleeCASE NO 2017-1791vOn Appeal from the Franklin CountyCourt of Appeals Tenth AppellateLEGESSE WORKUDistrictDefendant-AppellantAPPELLEES MEMORANDUM TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS PROPOSITIONS OF LAW 6tree reinoval betweena utility companyand tree reinovalcompanyincludes specificationsthatpriori INTRODUCTIONa prison termof five yearsfor each count to be served concurrently2Christnerdid not appeal his conviction and sentence Insteadhe filed fivemotions forjudicial release between August 2011 a NOTICE OF APPEAL OF APPELLANTS GHOLAMREZA VAHDATIBANAof appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio from Judgment of the Franklin County Court ofL Matan 0012381AN WRIGHT NOBLEColumbus OH 43215ematanmgwlawcom TABLE OF CONTENTS iCases iConstitutional Provi sions Statutes and Rules Pro Se AppelleeMalgorzata Polkowska-Sulek9600 ZyrardowPro Se Appelleeul Kapitana Hali 6 m 9 PolandPro Se Appellee99-320 Zychlinul WarynskiegoPro Se Appellee96-300 ZyrardowPro Se AppelleeTABLE OF CONTE