 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Camp v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 06AP-424,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred because the insured was not entitled to recover UM/UIM benefits under the policy. Pursuant to former R.C. § 3937.18 and the setoff provision in the policy at issue, the $ 50,000 UM/UIM coverage limit of the policy was reduced by the $ 50,000 that the insured received from the tortfeasor's insurer.
|
|||||
| Montoney v. Lincoln Logs, Ltd., No. 06AP-284,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was proper. In the absence of evidence of any conduct constituting a deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable act by the log home company within the two years preceding the filing of the claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), R.C. § 1345.01 et seq., the claims were time-barred by R.C. § 1345.10(C).
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Dooley v. Trial Court, No. 88960,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 23, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's mandamus complaint, seeking to compel prosecutor to provide discovery in connection with inmate's postconviction petition, was dismissed on summary judgment. Inmate failed to file affidavit required by R.C. § 2969.25(C). He also had no legal right to discovery as discovery was not available in initial stages of postconviction proceedings.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Solley v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 05AP-713,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The employee was provided the opportunity to request a prehearing conference, pursuant to Ohio Admin. Code § 4121-3-34(C)(7), where the issue of the doctor's failure to examine for all of the physical claim allowances in her PTD claim could have been addressed. Since she did not, she was precluded from raising the issue in a mandamus action.
|
|||||
| State v. Brooks, Case No. 2006CA0048,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, RICHLAND COUNTY, January 23, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in changing defendant's one-year sentence for escape to a two-year sentence moments later when defendant became disruptive in court. One-year sentence had not been journalized before the trial court changed it. Given the numerous unfavorable reports regarding defendant's behavior, the two-year sentence was not unreasonable.
|
|||||
| State v. Martin, No. 06AP-301,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in permitting a detective to testify that he was sure that defendant was the shooter as it was clear that defendant "opened the door" to the line of questioning by calling the detective as a witness and asking him if he had conducted gunshot residue tests on any of the other individuals at the scene.
|
|||||
| Way v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., No. 06AP-657,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an inmate's parole hearing was postponed because it was found that his sentence was erroneously calculated, his declaratory judgment suit, under R.C. § 2721.05, seeking a declaration that his sentence was unlawfully altered, stated no real, justiciable controversy because he sought to enforce a right he did not have to an incorrect sentence.
|
|||||
| Whitestone Co. v. Stittsworth, No. 06AP-371,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The award of attorney fees was disproportionate to the damages obtained (security deposit), which raised a question as to reasonableness under R.C. § 5321.16(C.) It could not be known if the trial court applied the Ohio Code Prof. Resp. DR 2-106(B) factors and there was no explanation as to why it found the requested fees to be fair and customary.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
