 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Staats v. Bowersock, CASE NUMBER 1-06-41,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, ALLEN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a father's child support obligation was established in a juvenile court, once the parties were married and divorced, the proper tribunal to dispose of domestic relations matters, including child support, was the domestic relations court; the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over a proceeding for the father's non-payment of support.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Summitville Tiles, Inc. v. Riggs, No. 05AP-1155,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of TTD compensation, under R.C. § 4123.56(A), was an abuse of discretion as it was premised upon a clear mistake of law, i.e., that TTD could be premised upon the newly allowed conditions that the chiropractor never identified in his C-84s. There was no finding as to whether the cervical and lumbar sprains were at maximum medical improvement.
|
|||||
| State v. Blocker, No. 06AP-313,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for misconduct at an emergency, under R.C. § 2917.13. She knowingly prevented the paramedics from treating her sister during an emergency by being abusive and interfering. Due to her behavior, the police had to be called and the paramedics had to exit the apartment, leaving the sister unattended.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, CASE NO. CA2006-06-026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FAYETTE COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to modify his sentence after his direct appeal resulted in an affirmance was construed as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. § 2953.21; as it was not timely filed and was not within the timeliness exceptions under R.C. §§ 2953.21(A)(2) and 2953.23(A)(1) because it only raised sentencing issues, it lacked merit.
|
|||||
| State v. Hairston, No. 06AP-420,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Separate sentences for kidnapping and aggravated robbery were proper, under R.C. § 2941.25(B), because defendant's victims' restraint was not just incidental to aggravated robbery. Only one firearm specification sentence could be imposed for each of three home invasions because specification sentences related to each crime in each invasion merged.
|
|||||
| State v. Harper, CASE NUMBER 1-05-79,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, ALLEN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea to a charge of attempted intimidation of a witness under R.C. §§ 2923.02(A) and 2921.04(B) was vacated because attempted intimidation was incorporated into R.C. § 2921.04(B) itself. Defendant's guilty plea was to the crime of attempt to attempt to intimidate, which was not a cognizable crime under Ohio law.
|
|||||
| State v. Kelly, CASE NO. CA2006-01-002,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BUTLER COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Excluding, under Crim. R. 16(E)(3), defendant's late-disclosed witness did not deny him a defense or show counsel, who was unaware of the witness, was ineffective. Defendant's unlawful sexual conduct with a minor conviction was not against the manifest weight, and counsel had no reason to think a suppression motion he did not file would succeed.
|
|||||
| State v. McMullen, CASE NO. CA2006-04-086,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BUTLER COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erroneously dismissed inmate's petition for postconviction relief without first holding hearing or making findings of fact and conclusions of law required by R.C. § 2953.21(C) because inmate's petition was not untimely, and there did not appear to be any other reason as to why trial court should not have had to comply with § 2953.21(C).
|
|||||
| State v. Pigot, No. 06AP-343,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of State v. Foster to defendants who committed their offenses before decision was released did not violate constitutional principles of due process or operate as an ex post facto law; thus, the imposition of maximum, consecutive sentences on defendant did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Due Process Clause and Ex Post Facto Clause.
|
|||||
| State v. Radabaugh, Case No. 06CA2,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, JACKSON COUNTY, January 16, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant was not brought to trial within 90 days, as required by R.C. § 2945.71(B)(2), her right to a speedy trial was violated. Out of a total of 352 days, 252 days should have been counted against defendant, due to tolling events, under R.C. § 2945.72(E), leaving a total of 100 days chargeable against the State for speedy trial purposes.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
