 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Walters, Nos. 2006-0613 and 2006-0614,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The notice given to the natural father was sufficient to satisfy R.C. § 3107.11(A) as the original notice of the filing of the adoption petition did not need to include any language specifying the dual issues that were to be presented at the hearing and the trial court did not need to hold a separate hearing as to the best interests of the child.
|
|||||
| State v. Addison, No. 89273,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 17, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed since petition was defective, in that it was not verified, as required by R.C. § 2725.04; accused did not attach copy of commitment papers to his petition; and accused did not file the affidavit required by R.C. § 2969.25 describing each civil action or appeal he had filed within previous five years.
|
|||||
| State v. Anderson, C. A. No. 23197,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant did not expressly threaten harm when he had intercourse with minor victim, there was sufficient evidence of force presented at trial to support imposition of life sentence under R.C. § 2907.02. Evidence showed that defendant was in position of authority over victim as he was in charge of the victim when her parents were not home.
|
|||||
| State v. Fletcher, C.A. No. 23171,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The jury did not lose its way in finding defendant guilty of possession of marijuana and cocaine, under R.C. § 2925.11(A), and possessing criminal tools, under R.C. § 2923.24. The jury could have reasonably interpreted the flurry of activity in the car prior to the stop as defendant's attempt to hide the drugs and scale.
|
|||||
| State v. Gaston, No. 79626,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 17, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An App. R. 26(B) application to reopen court's judgment affirming defendant's convictions was dismissed. Application, which was filed three years after court issued judgment, was not timely filed. Defendant's contentions that he was ignorant of law and that he had difficulty obtaining evidence did not constitute good cause excusing untimely filing.
|
|||||
| State v. Pelsozy, C. A. No. 23297,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied as untimely, under Crim. R. 12(D), because he did not try to show good cause for an untimely filing, until seeking reconsideration of its denial, or timely seek an extension to file it, and his reasons for an untimely filing did not show it was in the best interest of justice to allow the filing.
|
|||||
| Strongsville Bd. of Educ. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, No. 2005-1638,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) could rely on an appraisal instead of a recent sale price to find the value of real estate for tax purposes because the sale was not an arms-length transaction. The BTA's choice of an appraisal did not abuse discretion, and minor inaccuracies did not render its decision unreasonable or unlawful, under R.C. § 5717.04.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
