 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State ex rel. Malloy v. City of Girard, CASE NO. 2006-T-0019,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, TRUMBULL COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in granting a city's motion under Civ. R. 12(B)(6) to dismiss an action by a union and various employees, seeking contempt, mandamus, and injunctive relief against the city due to its alleged violation of an arbitration award, as the pleading was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Civ. R. 8(A)(1).
|
|||||
| State v. Bailey, Court of Appeals No. H-06-020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, HURON COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion in precluding defendant's expert witness from testifying upon finding that the expert was not qualified as an expert under Evid. R. 702(B), as he had sufficient expertise on the issue of whether a window tint meter device was reliable for purposes of R.C. § 4513.241 to have testified on the issue.
|
|||||
| State v. Bell, APPEAL NOS. C-050537 C-050539 n11 These appeals have been consolidated.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for aggravated murder, in violation of R.C. § 2903.01, was supported by sufficient evidence where defendant's comments to a friend indicated that he had a prior calculation and design to kill, he persuaded the victim to go outside with him, asked the victim for his gun, and then shot the victim from a short distance away.
|
|||||
| State v. Brooks, No. 2005-L-200,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression of evidence obtained during traffic stop was properly granted as officer did not have probable cause to stop car by virtue of fact that registration mark and sticker on license plate were covered by plate bracket. Seventy-five percent of tags were visible; thus, frame did not obscure visibility of tags in violation of R.C. § 4503.21(A).
|
|||||
| State v. Canady, APPEAL NO. C-060267,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While R.C. § 2953.08(D) did not preclude court from reviewing validity of defendant's guilty plea leading to agreed sentence, defendant had not shown that his plea was involuntary as record showed that trial court complied with Crim. R. 11(C). Changes State v. Foster made in Ohio's sentencing scheme did not have any effect on voluntariness of plea.
|
|||||
| State v. Cochran, CASE NO. 2006-G-2697,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, GEAUGA COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the concepts of petty theft and theft as instructed by the trial court were sufficiently different, an essential element of the offense was possibly omitted from the instruction on petty theft, a violation of R.C. § 2913.02(A)(1), requiring reversal. Also, an instruction for the lesser included offense of third degree burglary was required.
|
|||||
| State v. Decicco, Case No. 2006-CA-33,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the State met its burden of production regarding each element of the crimes of menacing, under R.C. § 2903.22, and disorderly conduct, under R.C. 2917.11(A)(1), there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions. It was "more likely than not" that the neighbor would have heard defendant's threatening statements.
|
|||||
| State v. Lakes, Appellate Case No. 21490,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony of defendant's half-brother that defendant said that he shot victim while trying to rob him was sufficiently credible to allow jury to find defendant guilty of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. While defendant argued that he acted in self-defense, evidence showed that defendant ran from shooting and never reported alleged robbery.
|
|||||
| State v. Lochett, APPEAL NO. C-060404,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retroactive application of State v. Foster to imposition of maximum sentence on defendant did not violate ex post facto or due process concepts. Defendant had fair warning of Foster decision as two U.S. Supreme Court decisions on issue had been decided before defendant committed offense. Also, Foster did not change potential punishment for offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Minor, APPEAL NO. C-060043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, January 26, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence about the threats or that the prosecutor's comments about the threats were improper. The prosecutor did not improperly appeal to the jury's sympathy. Rather, evidence of the threats was used to explain why the witnesses had not come forward sooner.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
