 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brockman v. Terminal Warehouse, C.A. No. 23258,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A business invitee's suit to recover for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell on ice in a property owner's parking lot was properly dismissed on summary judgment because the invitee admitted that he slipped on a natural accumulation of ice, and he admitted that he was aware of the snow and ice on the parking lot.
|
|||||
| Cole v. Temple Israel, C. A. No. 23243,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a terminated employee signed a release of all claims against his former employer in consideration of the receipt of severance pay and did not show the employer misrepresented the contents of the release, any claim he had against the employer, including a claim under R.C. § 4123.90 of retaliation for seeking workers' compensation, was barred.
|
|||||
| Disc. Cellular, Inc. v. PUC, Nos. 2005-2209, 2005-2368, 2005-2369, and 2005-2370,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio order exempting cellular providers from R.C. § 4905.26 complaints required no formal rulemaking. Applying the order retroactively to dismiss resellers' complaints about acts occurring before its issuance was error, but the resellers' contest of the Commission's alternate basis for dismissal was not preserved.
|
|||||
| EI UK Holdings, Inc. v. Cinergy UK, Inc., C. A. No. 23216,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a holding company said a utility company and its subsidiary breached duties to indemnify the holding company for losses, the parties' contract was ambiguous as to when the utility company's indemnification duty arose, so granting summary judgment to the utility company was an error, and the holding company was not entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| In re Di Vincenzo, Case No. V2006-20356, Case No. V2006-20364, Case No. V2006-20372,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When applicants sought reparations for criminally injurious conduct causing a decedent's death, but the decedent was convicted of a felony within 10 years before the criminally injurious conduct, R.C. § 2743.60(E)(1) barred a reparations award, so it was not unreasonable or unlawful for a panel of commissioners of the court of claims to so rule.
|
|||||
| In re J. B., C. A. No. 23307,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When, in a dependency proceeding under R.C. § 2151.28, a magistrate denied a mother's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the mother appealed that denial, the mother's appeal divested the magistrate of the authority to proceed to adjudication and disposition, so the magistrate's adjudicatory and dispositional orders had to be vacated.
|
|||||
| MacDowell v. DeCarlo, C.A. No. 23281,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's Civ. R. 52 findings and conclusions adequately allowed appellate review of the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and its application of the law, regarding an ex-husband's alleged undue influence of a decedent, and the trial court's judgment finding no undue influence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Mellion v. Akron City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., C. A. No. 23227,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a teacher contested, under R.C. §§ 3119.11 and 3119.16, her contract's non-renewal, she did not timely seek an administrative hearing, so adoption of a referee's decision was not the final act from which to appeal, but the decision before the late demand was that act, which was not appealed in 30 days, so a trial court could not hear the case.
|
|||||
| N. Fork Props. v. Bath Twp., C. A. No. 23312,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an R.C. § 2506.04 appeal of the affirmance of a zoning appeals board's decision to deny a use variance, a developer did not show it did not receive a fair hearing, and substantial evidence supported the board's decision that the developer showed no unnecessary hardship without a variance because it could develop its property for permitted uses.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. Cochrum, C. A. No. 23349,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a husband learned that the child he had supported to majority was the biological child of another man, his complaint for unjust enrichment against the father did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, under Civ. R. 12(B)(6), because it was a claim which the Ohio Supreme Court had specifically declined to recognize and precluded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
