 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Fuote, No. 87846,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence that defendant attempted to assault a police officer, under R.C. § 2903.13(C)(3) and R.C. § 2923.02. Testimony showed that defendant grabbed an officer's arm and placed it in a death grip, attempting to twist it. R.C. § 2903.13 only required that defendant caused or attempted to cause physical harm.
|
|||||
| State v. Labghaly, No. 87759,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The record failed to provide enough evidence to support the $ 13,655 restitution order. Therefore, it could not be determined whether the ordered amount of restitution bore a reasonable relationship to the actual loss suffered as a result of defendant's illegal conduct, as required by R.C. § 2929.21(E).
|
|||||
| State v. Lumbus, No. 87767,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no "prior acts error," under Evid. R. 404(B). The witnesses' testimony that they had previously purchased drugs from defendant was not used to show that he was acting in conformity with those prior acts. It was presented to show how they knew defendant and that they would buy the drugs through an arranged meeting over the telephone.
|
|||||
| State v. Morgan, No. 87578,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress was properly denied. Transfer of a bag from driver of one car to defendant in neighborhood in which drug activity was common was adequate reason under U.S. Const. amend. IV to stop defendant's car to investigate further. Since plastic bag protruding from defendant's pocket was in plain view, officers were justified in seizing it.
|
|||||
| State v. Quinones, No. 87517,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's convictions for rapes and a kidnapping, in violation of R.C. §§ 2907.02(A)(2) and 2905.01(A)(2), (4), were based on actions that occurred at the same time, did not involve separate movement of the victim, and were allied offenses of similar import with a single animus under R.C. § 2941.25(B), a separate kidnapping sentence was error.
|
|||||
| State v. Ralston, Case No. 06CA2898,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ROSS COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that affidavit lacked probable cause under Fourth Amendment was proper. Officers' testimony that they saw marijuana plants in back of pickup truck was not credible as officers were at least 50 feet away from truck when they purportedly identified the plants, and bed of truck was deep enough that plants would not have been visible over it.
|
|||||
| State v. Riggins, Case No. 05CA3043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SCIOTO COUNTY, January 11, 2007, File-Stamped
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's non-minimum, consecutive sentences were void and had to be vacated because, in imposing sentences, the trial court considered R.C. § 2929.14(B) and (E)(4), which the Ohio Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional as they required trial courts to make findings based on facts that jury had not determined or a defendant had not admitted.
|
|||||
| State v. Tripplett, No. 87788,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence for possession of criminal tools, under R.C. § 2923.24 as video surveillance equipment was being used for a criminal purpose. Testimony showed that two controlled drug buys had been effected at defendant's residence and, before the police entered the apartment, defendant tried to flush crack cocaine down the toilet.
|
|||||
| Watts v. Ohio Dep't of Ins., No. 87849,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of a bail bond licensee's motion to reinstate his administrative appeal from a decision by the Ohio Department of Insurance, which had revoked his bail bond license, was proper, as the licensee had failed to comply with R.C. § 119.12 and accordingly, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
|
|||||
| West v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 87825,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 11, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since, in insured's appeal from trial court's judgment in favor of insurer, insured failed to file transcript of proceedings or suitable substitute under App. R. 9(C) or (D), the court was unable to determine whether the trial court's judgment was against manifest weight of the evidence; instead, it had to presume the regularity of the proceedings.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
