 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bauman v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., No. 06AP-737,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer could not be held liable on the basis of respondeat superior for its assistant manager's actions in ordering a strip search of its employees after manager discovered that her jewelry was missing because her actions were not committed within the scope of her employment as they were not designed to facilitate the business of the employer.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. Edwards, CASE NO. CA2006-04-044,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WARREN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a wife did not list sums her former husband owed her, under a divorce decree, in a bankruptcy petition, neither equitable nor judicial estoppel barred her pursuit of contempt for his failure to pay these sums, because he did not show he relied on the bankruptcy petition or that she successfully took a contrary position in the bankruptcy court.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., No. 06AP-374,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate could not properly seek a declaratory judgment, under R.C. § 2721.03, finding that new parole guidelines were improperly applied to his sentence because parole guidelines were not subject to the declaratory judgment statute as they were not constitutional provisions, rules or statutes.
|
|||||
| Hartley v. Hartley, CASE NUMBER 9-06-26,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, MARION COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A temporary suspension of spousal support was not final and appealable, under R.C. § 2505.02(B), because it did not determine the action, as it was temporary, and further proceedings were anticipated, nor was it made in a special proceeding, and it did not affect a substantial right, as any error could be remedied on the anticipated further review.
|
|||||
| In re Esparza, CASE NUMBER 9-06-25, CASE NUMBER 9-06-27,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, MARION COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entries
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting permanent custody of boys to agency since boys had not been in temporary custody of agency for twelve of last twenty-two months prior to filing of permanent custody motion, and trial court failed to determine, pursuant to R.C. § 2151.414(B)(1)(a), that boys could not be placed with either parent within reasonable time.
|
|||||
| In re G.N., CASE NO. CA2006-08-062,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLERMONT COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court's findings and conclusions granting permanent custody were not timely sought, and its placement of the children in an agency's temporary custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It could not be determined if the court considered required statutory factors in R.C. § 2151.414(D) before granting permanent custody.
|
|||||
| In re Swint, Case No. V2004-60679,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A crime victim did not meet his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he was the victim of criminally injurious conduct pursuant to R.C. §§ 2743.52(A) and 2743.61, as there was no indication as to who instigated an incident that resulted in a physical altercation; the denial was deemed reasonable and lawful.
|
|||||
| Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hohman, CASE NUMBER 17-06-08,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, SHELBY COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insured's summary judgment motion claiming UM/UIM coverage under R.C. § 3937.18 was properly denied because an agent's affidavit creating a genuine fact issue did not conflict with her deposition and was based on personal knowledge. The insured's claim that instructions did not properly define damages was unreviewable absent a trial transcript.
|
|||||
| Poulton v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., Case No. 2006CA00103,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the anti-stacking language in the auto policy was clear, under R.C. § 3937.18(G), the total amount recoverable by the insureds on the UIM claim was $ 300,000. The auto insurer's pro rata share was 75 percent. But, since the insureds had received $ 100,000 from the motorcycle insurer, they were only entitled to $ 200,000 from the auto insurer.
|
|||||
| Pyle v. Pyle, CASE NO. 1-06-25,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, ALLEN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a divorce court ordered custody of a child later adjudicated dependent by a juvenile court, the child's parents remarried each other, and the juvenile court gave a non-parent custody, the divorce court's jurisdiction ended on remarriage, so it could not modify support, as the juvenile court had sole jurisdiction, under R.C. § 2151.23(A)(11).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
