Hyle v. Porter, 882 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio 2008)
Nature of Case: Appellant resided at his home with his wife since 1991, and subsequently Ohio passed a law that required people who were required to register abide by residence restrictions. Appellant was one such person, and trial court enjoined him from occupying residence. Appellant appealed, and Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. State supreme court granted review.
Holding: Ohio Supreme Court held that, under Ohio law, statutes are presumed to be prospective only absent clear indication that they are intended to be retrospective in application. Here there was no such indication, therefore it was not intended to apply retroactively
- Ohio Supreme Court Opinion | view via Google Scholar
- Appellee’s Supplemental Brief
- Appellant’s Supplemental Brief
- Appellant’s Reply Brief
- Appellant’s Brief