 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jackson v. Glidden Co., No. 87779,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted as the mothers failed to show that the paint company proximately caused the lead paint poisoning. The mothers' inability to identify the paint or the manufacturer of the paint, and their failure to join as defendants all potential tortfeasors, precluded the applicability of the alternative liability theory.
|
|||||
| Jones v. City of Cleveland Heights, No. 87957,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court fulfilled its duty and did not err when it failed to find that the property owner had practical difficulties that would allow him an area variance, under Cleveland, Ohio, Zoning Code § 1121.12(a)(8). The zoning board determined that replacing a bay window would be a viable alternative to the proposed widening of the driveway extension.
|
|||||
| Liberty Twp. v. Ohio State Empl. Rels. Bd., No. 06AP-246,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affirmance of an order of the Ohio State Employment Relations Board which set a date for voting eligibility regarding a union's exclusive representation of certain town employees was error under R.C. § 119.12, as it was unclear whether the voting date should have included a large number of new hires in order to comport with fundamental fairness.
|
|||||
| McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ., No. 06AP-638,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute of limitations applicable to a claim for monetary damages for discrimination filed against the state was the two-year statute in R.C. § 2743.16, and not the six-year statute in R.C. § 2305.07, so, when an employee filed a discrimination claim against a state university more than two years after the claim accrued, it was time-barred.
|
|||||
| Morris-Walden v. Moore, No. 87989,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where parties entered into a settlement agreement that required appellee to pay a set sum by a particular date to appellants, the failure to have paid in a timely manner was not sufficient, alone, to justify granting relief from judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 60(B) where no fraudulent intent by appellee was shown.
|
|||||
| Noonan v. DOT, Case No. 2006-04091-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ohio DOT was entitled to judgment in its favor in suit brought against it arising out of a collision between driver's car and DOT's salt truck. Driver had been convicted of violation of assured clear distance ahead statute, R.C. § 4511.21(A), and there were no witness statements to refute the existing evidence of driver's violation of § 4511.21(A).
|
|||||
| Ohio Civ. Serv. Emples. Ass'n, Local 11, AFL-CIO v. State, No. 06AP-413, No. 06AP-414,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly found that application of R.C. § 3318.31 (as amended by Sub. S.B. 56, Gen. Assem. (Ohio)) to a union's petitions for amendment of certification to add employees of the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission to its bargaining units would have rendered that statute retroactive, as the petitions were pending prior to the amendment.
|
|||||
| Ohio State Univ. v. Alexander, No. 87983,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's adoption of a magistrate's decision to deny a state university's request for attorney's fees in its action against a student who had allegedly defaulted on his student loan payments was proper, as the university failed to offer proof as to how the stated fees were calculated; accordingly, it did not meet its burden of proof.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Arrow Int'l, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 05AP-1319,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of mandamus was granted to employer ordering industrial commission to enter order adjudicating issue of whether claimant voluntarily abandoned her employment as employer presented its voluntary abandonment claim at hearing before staff hearing officer. Commission abused its discretion when it failed to address critical issue raised before it.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Dreamer v. Mason, Nos. 89249 and 89250,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As counsel for a county board of elections lacked authority under R.C. §§ 309.09(A) and 305.14(A) to bring a mandamus action on behalf of the board against the prosecuting attorney's office, the action was dismissed; the prosecuting attorney clearly did not represent the board and the procedural requirements of R.C. § 305.14(A) were not met.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
