 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Phillips v. DOT, Case No. 2006-05462-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained to his vehicle when it struck piece of wood on roadway, judgment was rendered for DOT because driver had not shown that DOT had actual or constructive notice of debris, and he did not show that DOT maintained its highways negligently or that DOT's acts caused defective condition.
|
|||||
| Seitz v. Seitz, Case No. 06-CA-1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, MORROW COUNTY, January 5, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's consideration of the fact that the mother had a home in which each child had a bedroom, while the father had resigned from his job and had not exhibited a desire to obtain new employment did not constitute a preference of one party over another based solely upon their relative financial situation, in violation of R.C. § 3109.04(F)(3).
|
|||||
| Sovik v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2006-05861-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained to his vehicle when it hit a pothole, judgment was rendered for DOT because the driver had not shown that DOT had actual or constructive notice of the pothole, and he did not show that DOT maintained its highways negligently.
|
|||||
| State v. Blake, Appellate Case No. 20884,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 5, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the prosecutor should not have used the term "red-handed" in its opening statement, it did not constitute plain error. The prosecution's remark was argumentative and belonged more properly in the final argument where it was again made by the prosecution. Those remarks were perfectly acceptable final argument by the prosecutor.
|
|||||
| State v. Cargle, Appellate Case No. 21228,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 5, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of appellant's summarily denied petition for post-conviction relief was found to be wholly frivolous as the case law relied on for the proposition that a constitutional right applied retroactively under R.C. § 2953.23(A)(1)(a) for an otherwise untimely petition for post-conviction relief actually applied prospectively only.
|
|||||
| State v. Carter, Case No. 21694,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 5, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since record did not show that defendant ever filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim. R. 32.1, defendant was unable to prove error assigned on appeal to effect that trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw. Instead, record showed that trial court invited defendant to file motion to withdraw but that defendant never did so.
|
|||||
| State v. Coffey, C.A. CASE NO. 2006 CA 6,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MIAMI COUNTY, January 5, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in failing to merge, under R.C. § 2941.25(B), kidnapping into the offense of aggravated robbery because defendant committed both offenses with a single animus. Defendant's act of restraining the victim in her bedroom was incidental to the aggravated robbery and there was no asportation of the victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Dzodzomenyo, C.A. Case No. 20128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 5, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's Crim. R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his plea two years after his conviction was proper as there was no manifest injustice. Since defendant testified at the motion hearing, the trial court was in the best position to determine whether he was sufficiently proficient in the language to understand the proceedings.
|
|||||
| State v. Fugate, Case No. 21574,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 5, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by applying the stricter post-sentencing standard of discretion to the presentence Crim. R. 32.1 motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Not only was the motion literally made before sentencing, the reasons for applying a stricter standard did not apply since defendant was not changing his plea because he was unhappy with his sentence.
|
|||||
| State v. Henderson, Appellate, Case No. 21611,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied defendant's suppression motion with respect to crack cocaine that was seized from his pants pocket, as a police officer's testimony was deemed credible with respect to a consent for a search of the premises, a pat down search of defendant, and seizure of the crack cocaine from his pocket.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
