 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Middlebrooks, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court only made a determination as to the priority of liens in a foreclosure action, but the remaining parties had not been disposed of and the original foreclosure complaint remained pending, there was no final appealable order under R.C. § 2505.02, and an appeal from that order required dismissal.
|
|||||
| Brink v. Moody, Case No. 2006CA00001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly entered judgment for a real property seller in a fraud action by purchasers, as they did not show that the seller was fraudulent in her disclosure of a basement water problem, although her disclosure could have been more complete; however, there was no showing of an intent by the seller to mislead the purchasers.
|
|||||
| Cole v. Cole, Case No. 2006-CA-00190,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not find that the husband was unemployed or underemployed for spousal support and child support, under R.C. § 3119.01. Since the husband testified evasively and claimed not to know his income, the trial court estimated his income from his earnings from a business similar to the one he was currently operating.
|
|||||
| In re E.C., CASE NO. CA2006-03-060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BUTLER COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that mother had separated from her husband six times, requiring her children to move to another residence and change schools each time; that mother and her husband fought frequently; and that mother had interfered with the father's parenting time supported finding that there had been a change in circumstances under R.C. § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).
|
|||||
| In re Guardianship of Thompson, CASE NO. CA2006-04-029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLERMONT COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A probate court's decision to name one of two daughters as the guardian for their mother was not an abuse of discretion pursuant to R.C. § 2111.01 et seq., as the decision was commensurate with the finding as to the mother's wish to remain with one daughter and to not return to the other.
|
|||||
| Pohle v. Lord, Case No. 06CAE030017,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DELAWARE COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A jury verdict in favor of real property purchasers on their breach of contract claim, arising from the seller's repudiation of their option, was supported by some competent, credible evidence that the 30-day period to close upon exercise of the option was not of the essence, as the seller had continued to pursue the matter after that time.
|
|||||
| Sexton v. City of Mason, CASE NO. CA2006-02-026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WARREN COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As development of a subdivision caused flooding on home owners' property, which continued after the construction was completed, a permanent trespass occurred; the owners' claim against the adjacent property owner and the engineering company that designed the storm water system should have been brought within four years under R.C. § 2305.09.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. Lucas County Sheriff's Office, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1108,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A union was awarded attorney fees under R.C. § 149.43(C) where a sheriff's office and others refused to comply with its public records request until after the union commenced a mandamus action; certain records which were withheld allegedly due to the medical records exception were accompanied by a waiver and authorization for release.
|
|||||
| State v. Pfeiffer, Case No. 2006-CA-0046,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, RICHLAND COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred by granting ensealment of appellee's criminal record. Pursuant to R.C. § 2953.36(D), appellee was not entitled to ensealment under R.C. § 2953.32 as appellee had been convicted of attempted sexual battery, a fourth-degree felony, and the sexual conduct engaged in by appellee was directed towards a seventeen-year-old victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Pruett, Case No. 06-CA-29,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, KNOX COUNTY, January 8, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's maximum, consecutive sentences, imposed upon his convictions for rape and gross sexual imposition, were affirmed because, in sentencing defendant, the trial court imposed sentences within the statutory range in R.C. § 2929.14(A) and did not give any reasons for imposing the sentence that it did.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
