
    In re Sexual Offender Reclassification Cases.
    [Cite as In re Sexual Offender Reclassification Cases, 126 Ohio St.3d 505, 2010-Ohio-4725.]
    (Submitted September 14, 2010
    — Decided October 6, 2010.)
   {¶ 1} Discretionary appeals are accepted in the following cases on the Propositions of Law noted. The judgments of the courts of appeals are reversed as to those portions of the judgments that rejected constitutional challenges to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds on the authority of State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings, if any, necessitated by State v. Bodyke.

{¶ 2} 2010-0588. Anderson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090006. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 3} 2010-0590. Edwards v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090189. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 4} 2010-0593. Wilson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090190. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 5} 2010-1080. Crawford v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090487. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 6} 2010-1081. Mackey v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090378. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 7} 2010-1082. Martin v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090523. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 8} 2010-1084. Johnson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090475. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 9} 2010-1125. Wiehe v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090500. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 10} 2010-1128. Taulbee v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090563. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 11} 2010-1164. Stigall v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081307. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 12} 2010-1165. State v. Caudill, Hamilton App. No. C-090530. Proposition of Law No. III.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.  