Case Citator › State v. Logan

State v. Logan

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
60 Ohio St. 2d 126
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
2015
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. All 33 flagged citations have been read. State v. Ruff displaced Logan's general two-step approach to deciding whether offenses merge, as State v. Merz later recognized.
More on how this was screened

Logan's guidance on when kidnapping and rape have a separate animus remains in use; the confirmed change to its general merger approach is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite State v. Logan; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Logan?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • Ruff replaced Logan's general two-step merger analysis with a conduct-based inquiry into distinct harm, separate acts, and separate animus.

    State v. Ruff · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    A trial court and the reviewing court on appeal when considering whether there are allied offenses that merge into a single conviction under R.C. 2941.25(A) must first take into account the conduct of the defendant. In other words, how were the offenses committed? If any of the following is true, the offenses cannot merge and the defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses: (1) the offenses are dissimilar in import or significance — in other words, each offense caused separate, identifiable harm, (2) the offenses were committed separately, or (3) the offenses were committed with separate animus or motivation.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Logan and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace