 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Snyder v. Snyder, CASE NO. 2004-A-0056,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ASHTABULA COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was proper as the son was not entitled to enforcement of the alleged oral contract for half the proceeds from the sale of the bar. Since the son was a convicted felon, his part ownership in the bar was a violation of then-existing versions of R.C. §§ 4303.29, 4303.292, and/or 4303.293, making it an illegal contract.
|
|||||
| Starr v. DOT, Case No. 2006-07074-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained as her vehicle crossed railroad tracks on road was dismissed because site of damage-causing incident was not the maintenance responsibility of DOT but was, instead, the railroad company's responsibility; thus, under R.C. §§ 4955.20 and 5501.31, DOT had no responsibility for incident.
|
|||||
| State v. Berry, Court of Appeals No. L-05-1048,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's denial of the motion to suppress was not error as there was no evidence showing that defendant was deprived of her freedom in any significant way prior to the time that she was advised of her Miranda rights. The detective thought that the boyfriend might have caused the child's death and, when asked, said that defendant could leave.
|
|||||
| State v. Buelow, Case No. 06-CA-29,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying the petition without a hearing. Because the issue of access to the victim's psychological records could have been fully litigated on direct appeal, the trial court was precluded from considering the matter in the postconviction proceeding; it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
|
|||||
| State v. Butcher, CASE NO. 2005-A-0033,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ASHTABULA COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not receive a fair trial due to numerous hearsay statements that were presented. The child victims' statements to their grandmother about the alleged sexual abuse did not qualify as an excited utterance exception to hearsay, under Evid. R. 803(2), as they had deliberated and did not disclose the abuse until two months later.
|
|||||
| State v. Casey, Court of Appeals No. L-05-1348,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court's Crim. R. 11 plea colloquy was meticulous in questioning and notifying defendant in order to reach its determination that his plea was entered voluntarily, defendant's claim that the colloquy was inadequate lacked merit; the colloquy included a statement by defendant indicating that the plea was voluntarily entered.
|
|||||
| State v. Cortez, Court of Appeals No. L-05-1112,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Possession of heroin conviction under R.C. § 2925.11(A) and (C)(6)(d) was supported by evidence that defendant often entered the apartment where heroin was found; that, over the course of two months of surveillance, he was only person seen staying at the building; and that his fingerprint was found on item in apartment used in processing of heroin.
|
|||||
| State v. Dean, APPEAL NO. C-050971,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ohio Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Hamilton County upheld the constitutionality of Cincinnati, Ohio, Mun. Code 910-12(a)-(e) as a content-neutral regulation that was narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests, while leaving open alternative channels of communication; § 910-12(f)-(i) were severed as a prior restraint.
|
|||||
| State v. Ham, Appellate Case No. 21467, 21468,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in extending defendant's probationary period after it had revoked her probation and imposed sentences in two separate hearings. Once it chose to impose a part of her original sentence, it was not permitted under former R.C. § 2951.09 to additionally continue her probation and it lacked jurisdiction for further sentencing.
|
|||||
| State v. Henderson, Appellate Case No. 21481,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 12, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an aggravated burglary prosecution, defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance under U.S. Const. amend. VI by conceding that defendant assaulted victim. Assault was well-documented, and defense counsel could have concluded that he could not dispute fact but that defendant would be better served by arguing that he was lawfully in home.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
