 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bihary v. Cleveland State Univ., Case No. 2006-05063-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: University was liable for damages sustained to invitee's car when the car's front bumper caught on a piece of metal rebar protruding from a parking block in university's parking lot. Protruding rebar was not open and obvious condition as invitee could not see it from her position as driver; thus, university should have warned invitee of condition.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Mabe, APPEAL NO. C-060323,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion in granting an employer's motion in limine to exclude testimony of an employee's medical expert in the employer's administrative appeal of a decision that granted the employee workers' compensation benefits, as the exclusion was unnecessarily prejudicial to the employee and the expert's testimony was relevant.
|
|||||
| City of Toledo v. Flugga, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1121,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that his counsel was ineffective in violation of U.S. Const. amend. VI and Ohio Const. art. I, § 10 by failing to request discovery or a bill of particulars pursuant to Crim. R. 7(E) lacked merit, as defendant did not show that the outcome of the trial would have been different and he did not show that he was prejudiced.
|
|||||
| Drake Constr. Co. v. Kemper House Mentor, Inc., CASE NO. 2005-L-157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a contractor suing a project owner for breach of contract and unjust enrichment adequately sought delay of a ruling on the owner's summary judgment motion to permit discovery, under Civ. R. 56(F), the motion's implicit denial abused discretion because the contractor specified the facts it hoped to learn from specific witnesses it would depose.
|
|||||
| Durell v. Lewis, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1138,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly granted summary judgment to medical entities in a patient's medical negligence action, as her assertion of a claim for "negligent referral" was not recognized in Ohio; the referring doctor did not have to obtain the patient's informed consent for a procedure done by another health care professional.
|
|||||
| FCMP, Inc. v. Alegre, Inc., C.A. CASE NO. 21457,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the supply company as there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the supply company's entitlement to payment on its account in the amount of $ 49,046.03. The complaint was limited to an action on account, pursuant to Civ. R. 10(D), and the trial court properly treated it as such.
|
|||||
| Greenslade v. Greenslade, CASE NO. 2005-L-093,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in finding the husband in contempt for failing to pay the wife one-half of his monthly retirement benefits, as he agreed to do in the separation agreement. The trial court was not prohibited from dividing the proceeds of the retirement account between the parties, since the benefits were a marital asset.
|
|||||
| Laurenzi v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2005-08930,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a motorcyclist sued the Ohio Department of Transportation for negligence causing his injuries after he struck a curb on an entrance ramp to an interstate highway, the Department was entitled to summary judgment because he did not prove the Department had a duty, under 23 U.S.C.S. § 116 or otherwise, to reconstruct the ramp or remove the curb.
|
|||||
| Machnics v. Sloe, CASE NO. 2006-G-2739,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, GEAUGA COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contemnor's appeal from trial court's order finding him guilty of contempt was dismissed on ground that order was not yet final because, while the trial court found the contemnor to be in contempt, there was no finding by the trial court that the contemnor had failed to purge himself, and so there was no actual imposition of a penalty or sanction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
