 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arick v. Seagle Masonry, Inc., No. 06AP-467,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer intentional tort suit was properly dismissed on summary judgment as there was no genuine issue as to whether employer knew that scaffolding, which collapsed while employee was on it, constituted dangerous condition. Evidence showed that scaffolding had been used for years and that there had been no issues regarding its stability or safety.
|
|||||
| Figer v. DOT, Case No. 2006-05616-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's suit against the Ohio DOT to recover for damage sustained to his car when he struck a wick drain on the shoulder of highway, judgment was rendered for DOT because the evidence showed that drain was located off the traveled portion of roadway, and driver offered no reasonable explanation or excuse for using the shoulder of the highway.
|
|||||
| Hawkins v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2006-05578-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained 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 or that DOT's acts caused the defective condition.
|
|||||
| Kemba Fin. Credit Union v. Fish, No. 06AP-195,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lender sufficiently complied with the notice requirements of R.C. § 1309.613(A)(1) where it notified the debtor of the date and place of her vehicle's auction; there was no requirement that the time of sale be included in the notification, the place of sale maintained regular business hours, and there was no showing of prejudice to the debtor.
|
|||||
| Montgomery v. Mann, No. 06AP-724,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disqualification under Ohio Code Prof. Resp. DR 5-102(A) of a mobile home park lessee's attorney in a dispute between the lessee and a lessor was not an abuse of discretion, as the attorney was a material witness to disputed facts, his testimony would be admissible, and it could potentially prejudice the lessee's claim.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Myers, Case No. 2006 CA 00026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LICKING COUNTY, January 9, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion under Licking County, Ohio, Ct. C.P. Dom. Rel. Div. R. 29.15 and R.C. § 3109.04(B)(2)(a) where it did not provide a former wife with a reasonable time to post a bond for initial guardian ad litem fees in a custody dispute, as she indicated that she had limited financial circumstances.
|
|||||
| Persinger v. State, No. 89149,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for a writ of mandamus asking court to vacate petitioner's sentence was dismissed since petition was procedurally defective, in that it was not brought in name of State on relation of petitioner and petitioner failed to file R.C. § 2969.25 affidavit and since petitioner possessed adequate remedy at law by filing delayed appeal with court.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Quiles, No. 88997,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 9, 2007, Release
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
