From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Butler

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 24, 1990
549 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 1990)

Summary

In Kinkaid, the Ohio Supreme Court found that Ohio Revised Code section 3103.03 made a non-cosigner wife liable for the payment of hospital and medical expenses incurred by her husband before his death when, at the husband's death, his assets were insufficient to pay such expenses.

Summary of this case from Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency

Opinion

No. 89-164

Submitted December 5, 1989 —

Decided January 24, 1990.

Criminal law — Juvenile law — Bindover of juvenile as adult — Juvenile court may consider seriousness of alleged offense when determining if juvenile is "not amenable to care or rehabilitation" in the juvenile justice system.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. CA-7494.

Robert D. Horowitz, prosecuting attorney, and Ronald Mark Caldwell, for appellee.

Randall M. Dana, public defender, and Barbara A. Farnbacher, for appellant James Curtis Butler.


This cause is affirmed on authority of State v. Watson (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 93, 547 N.E.2d 1181.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Butler

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 24, 1990
549 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 1990)

In Kinkaid, the Ohio Supreme Court found that Ohio Revised Code section 3103.03 made a non-cosigner wife liable for the payment of hospital and medical expenses incurred by her husband before his death when, at the husband's death, his assets were insufficient to pay such expenses.

Summary of this case from Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency
Case details for

State v. Butler

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BUTLER, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jan 24, 1990

Citations

549 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 1990)
48 Ohio St. 3d 78

Citing Cases

Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2) when they filed debt collection actions…

Embassy Healthcare v. Bell

(Emphasis added.) Id. at 80, 549 N.E.2d 517.{¶ 21} We then concluded that the decedent's wife was liable…