 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| First Fin. Bank v. Doellman, CASE NO. CA2006-02-029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BUTLER COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a foreclosure, a genuine fact issue existed as to whether mortgagors were notified of their default, as it was not shown how or by whom notice was sent, and the mortgagors denied receiving it. Civ. R. 9(C) did not require them to specifically plead failure to give notice because the bank did not allege compliance with this condition precedent.
|
|||||
| Gibson v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Family Servs., Case No. 2006-04571,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a father sued the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services for removing his daughter from his custody, the suit was time-barred, under R.C. § 2743.16(A), and the complaint was dismissed, because the suit was filed more than two years after the dates on which the father alleged he was injured by the Department's actions.
|
|||||
| In re Oliver, Case No. 2006CA00210,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since agency proved that a mother's children had been abandoned, in that mother had not visited children in over ninety days, trial court, pursuant to R.C. § 2151.419(A)(2), was not required to determine whether agency used reasonable efforts to reunify or whether children could not or should not be placed with either parent within reasonable time.
|
|||||
| Marra v. Nationwide Ins. Co., CASE NO. 05-MA-216,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, MAHONING COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's ruling that the business auto insurance policy excluded the UIM claim was reversed. Under former R.C. § 3937.18 (1997), the business auto policy was ambiguous and reasonably susceptible to different interpretations. The policy was issued to the insured's company, on whose behalf he was driving when the accident occurred.
|
|||||
| QualChoice, Inc. v. Bhd. Ins. Co., Case No. 06CA00020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since insurer one's insured was donee beneficiary of insurer two's insurance policy with its insured, he and insurer one as subrogated claimant were bound by provision in insurer two's policy stating that it would pay medical expenses for injury occurring on the insured's property only if the expenses were reported within one year of the accident.
|
|||||
| Riggs v. Richard, Case No. 2006CA00234,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a lawyer's motion, under Civ. R. 26(C), for a protective order to limit the scope of her deposition to matters not protected by attorney-client privilege, was denied, an appellate court had no jurisdiction to review the matter until the deposition was held, when the lawyer could object to answering specific questions and assert the privilege.
|
|||||
| Simpson v. Simpson, CASE NO. CA2006-04-028,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLERMONT COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce, when a husband's sole income was from Social Security retirement benefits and a wife sought spousal support, it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to consider the wife's request due to the source of the husband's income because all the factors in R.C. § 3105.18(C)(1) had to be considered, not just the source of the parties' income.
|
|||||
| State v. Andrews, CASE NO. CA2006-06-142,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BUTLER COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no vindictiveness. Defendant's violation of the bond order constituted new, objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding. The trial judge stated that defendant's violation of the order was the main reason for imposing the harsher sentence.
|
|||||
| State v. Caulley, CASE NO. CA2006-01-004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WARREN COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly found that defendant had failed to complete a treatment program, which violated the condition of his community control and warranted revocation thereof and imposition of a prison sentence; although defendant claimed that the program conflicted with his religious beliefs, that fact was not relied on by the trial court.
|
|||||
| State v. Goyman, CASE NUMBER 10-06-23, CASE NUMBER 10-06-24,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, MERCER COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entries
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of State v. Foster to defendant's sentence did not violate U.S. Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause; thus, sentence did not violate defendant's due process rights. Defendant committed offenses at issue after U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, which provided notice that major shift in sentencing was likely to occur.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
